CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 07:15:43 AM

Title: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 07:15:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/fKMxemx.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 07:18:36 AM
Among my least favorite (of many) rankings, click bait most of them ... this mostly is just a ranking of recent program success.  When a coach like Meyer or Saban have done well at multiple programs (2 or more), OK, I get it, they are likely quite good.  But maybe Smart just inherited a diamond in the rough and managed to have it cut properly.  Would he do as well at Penn State or Cincy?  No way to know, just speculation.  Anyway ...

This is near the top of my list of rankings I dislike.  (I reserve the top for wine rankings each year ...).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 22, 2023, 08:29:33 AM
Need a ranking of the rankings you dislike.

(Rankings fascinate me to no end)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 22, 2023, 08:55:25 AM
ugh
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
I realize rankings are mostly for clicks, especially this time of the year.  I dislike any which are not at least somewhat quantatively based, and reflect solely opinion.  I don't really mind them, they don't upset me, it's more of an ugh.

Prettiest stadiums in US
Best looking cheerleaders (I have no objection to doing the research...)
Best team mascot
Best team helmet/uniform/tradition/tailgating

Some that are at least semi-quantitative:

Best position player of all time 
Loudest stadium
Best team/season of all time
Best programs of whatever era

And then totally quantitative, which can get rather silly:

Most passing yards on third down in fourth quarter career by an ACC QB.

For topics like say best tailgating, I'd just submit a group of them and say they are all really good.  Visit and make up your own mind.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 22, 2023, 09:02:39 AM
ugh
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 22, 2023, 09:03:35 AM
Need a ranking of the rankings you dislike.

(Rankings fascinate me to no end)
1. Preseason
2. Big Game Boomer rankings
3. RPI
4. FPI
5. Best Freeways in the Los Angeles basin
6. Any rankings that automatically have 10 SEC teams in the Top 10 solely because they're SEC
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 09:05:24 AM
I don't mind preseason rankings in large part because I'm "here", meaning I think everyone here understands how to "take" preseason guesses, I mean, rankings.

Sometimes some team will show up I hadn't considered as ranking worthy, so I read a bit about them, say Tulane for example.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 09:41:48 AM


Most passing yards on third down in fourth quarter career by an ACC QB.

Phillip Rivers?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 09:43:22 AM
6. Any rankings that automatically have 10 SEC teams in the Top 10 solely because they're SEC
You pretend as if the SEC isn't the top conference in recruitiing by far, every year, national champions, in draft picks, high draft picks, and pro bowlers.
You know, like every metric.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 09:46:28 AM
He said "solely because they are SEC", not because they have some good teams.  And he said, as a quip, a ranking that has ten SEC teams in the top ten.  I don't think any of us here would take such a national ranking seriously, nor should we.  Clearly, it's hyperbole to suggest that by simply being in the SEC, a team will get a favorable ranking boost that otherwise is unwarranted.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 22, 2023, 10:34:43 AM
He said "solely because they are SEC", not because they have some good teams.  And he said, as a quip, a ranking that has ten SEC teams in the top ten.  I don't think any of us here would take such a national ranking seriously, nor should we.  Clearly, it's hyperbole to suggest that by simply being in the SEC, a team will get a favorable ranking boost that otherwise is unwarranted.
Softball and baseball are like this year in and year out.

Some years ago, the twice-beaten Gopher softball team was top-6 in all rankings going into the NCAA Tournament. The committee rewarded them by sending them to Tuscaloosa as the 3 seed in their regional. The justification was that Bama was SEC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 12:53:35 PM
Softball and baseball are like this year in and year out.

Some years ago, the twice-beaten Gopher softball team was top-6 in all rankings going into the NCAA Tournament. The committee rewarded them by sending them to Tuscaloosa as the 3 seed in their regional. The justification was that Bama was SEC.
Two different things here, seasonal polls by the AP or whatever versus some committee seeding teams for a playoff.  I doubt the latter provided that justification.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 22, 2023, 01:13:02 PM
hard not to put anyone other than Saban at #1. Kirby is a worthy #2. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 22, 2023, 02:39:11 PM
Two different things here, seasonal polls by the AP or whatever versus some committee seeding teams for a playoff.  I doubt the latter provided that justification.
All of the computer based rankings also had the Gophers in the same range, and they were still dispatched to Bama as the #3.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 02:41:11 PM
All of the computer based rankings also had the Gophers in the same range, and they were still dispatched to Bama as the #3.
And the rational provided was that Bama was in the SEC?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 22, 2023, 03:09:25 PM
And the rational provided was that Bama was in the SEC?

Yup. The chair of the committee was grilled at length by the host of the selection show after the bracket was revealed. The only coherent excuse in the subsequent word salad was that Bama was SEC and Minnesota was not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2023, 03:14:14 PM
Was there a specific quote including "SEC"?  Or did he just claim Bama had more impressive wins?    I know the football committee is more impressed with apparently nice looking wins than AP sportswriters, from what I can tell.  The AP more leans on absolute record I think.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 09:02:21 PM
Softball and baseball are like this year in and year out.

Some years ago, the twice-beaten Gopher softball team was top-6 in all rankings going into the NCAA Tournament. The committee rewarded them by sending them to Tuscaloosa as the 3 seed in their regional. The justification was that Bama was SEC.
In softball, the B1G isn't a "P5" conference. 
Once that is acknowledged, the rest is unremarkable.
.
The SEC had 7 other teams hosting regionals that year.  Alabama was 30 games over .500 overall.  Their SOS must have been orders of magnitude tougher than Minnesota's. 
And in the end, Minnesota went 0-2 vs Bama in that regional. 

What are you complaining about here??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 11:39:53 PM
Your favorite network has randomly ranked the top 75 QBs in the 2000s.  
1. Baker Mayfield
2. Cam Newton
3. Vince Young
4. Tim Tebow
5. Joe Burrow.....they say Newton, Young, and Burrow had the best individual seasons, but Mayfield the best career.
6. Deshaun Watson
7. Kyler Murray
8. Lamar Jackson
9. Marcus Mariota
10. Robert Griffin III
.
Discuss.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 22, 2023, 11:44:42 PM
All of the computer based rankings also had the Gophers in the same range, and they were still dispatched to Bama as the #3.
They were the number two, not the number three. As far as I’m seeing, it was the difference between the last regional hosting spot at the first number two.

I can see the logic that the difference in record couldn’t part be explained by Alabama facing a much, much tougher schedule. I can also understand being mad that you put up an extremely nice record and didn’t get rewarded.

in either case, they got to settle it on the field.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 22, 2023, 11:48:18 PM
Your favorite network has randomly ranked the top 75 QBs in the 2000s. 
1. Baker Mayfield
2. Cam Newton
3. Vince Young
4. Tim Tebow
5. Joe Burrow.....they say Newton, Young, and Burrow had the best individual seasons, but Mayfield the best career.
6. Deshaun Watson
7. Kyler Murray
8. Lamar Jackson
9. Marcus Mariota
10. Robert Griffin III
.
Discuss.
The whole network voted? Wow!

(This was one guy‘s ranking. He’s a very self-aware guy. He basically says this is subjective and understands that this exists because his bosses like rankings, and sometimes it’s fun to rank things)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 11:48:26 PM
 I can also understand being mad that you put up an extremely nice record and didn’t get rewarded.

For sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 22, 2023, 11:49:15 PM
The whole network voted? Wow!

(This was one guy‘s ranking. He’s a very self-aware guy. He basically says this is subjective and understands that this exists because his bosses like rankings, and sometimes it’s fun to rank things)
I agree with Mayfield at the top.  I think he's underrated.  He had 2 of the best seasons ever.  2!  One is special enough.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2023, 01:05:49 AM
I'm gonna say this here and not the obits thread:
it annoys me that ESPN 150 ranked Jim Brown #1 college RB ever.  Jim Brown wasn't JIM BROWN in 1956.  Sorry, that's revisionist history.
2 different OU backs had better seasons than him.  It's not like he finished 2nd to Hornung for the Heisman, he finished 5th.
And even look at the draft that year:  he was the 6th pick and the 3rd RB taken.  
.
He was obviously physically gifted, but you could rank him #1 if he:
a - had especially better statistical season(s) than anybody else
b - was thought of as the best in the context of a season
c - maybe lacked volume, but was the surefire #1 pick (or something like that)
.
He didn't do any of those.  
Here's the thing:  you could kind of maybe argue him being the best player in 1956, but it would require some arguing.
That being said, there's no argument that he was the best COLLEGE RB of all-time, sorry.  
.
RIP, Mr. Brown.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 07:13:56 AM
I'm gonna say this here and not the obits thread:
it annoys me that ESPN 150 ranked Jim Brown #1 college RB ever.  Jim Brown wasn't JIM BROWN in 1956.  Sorry, that's revisionist history.
2 different OU backs had better seasons than him.  It's not like he finished 2nd to Hornung for the Heisman, he finished 5th.
And even look at the draft that year:  he was the 6th pick and the 3rd RB taken. 
.
He was obviously physically gifted, but you could rank him #1 if he:
a - had especially better statistical season(s) than anybody else
b - was thought of as the best in the context of a season
c - maybe lacked volume, but was the surefire #1 pick (or something like that)
.
He didn't do any of those. 
Here's the thing:  you could kind of maybe argue him being the best player in 1956, but it would require some arguing.
That being said, there's no argument that he was the best COLLEGE RB of all-time, sorry. 
.
RIP, Mr. Brown.
Jim Brown is certainly in the NFL RB GOAT discussion, but agree with you, not in the COLLEGE goat RB discussion.

in terms of best college RB, I always go back and forth between Herschel Walker and Barry Sanders. Walker had the longevity and had more productive years, but Barry Sanders' '88 season was the best RB season ever and maybe even best season period ever for a college player. Barry Sanders was so otherworldly talented, I tend to lean towards him. But I can definitely see why people would pick Herschel #1.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 07:17:04 AM
Your favorite network has randomly ranked the top 75 QBs in the 2000s. 
1. Baker Mayfield
2. Cam Newton
3. Vince Young
4. Tim Tebow
5. Joe Burrow.....they say Newton, Young, and Burrow had the best individual seasons, but Mayfield the best career.
6. Deshaun Watson
7. Kyler Murray
8. Lamar Jackson
9. Marcus Mariota
10. Robert Griffin III
.
Discuss.
LOL.

Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray belong nowhere near this list. They put up inflated #'s playing in a weak ass no defense playing B12 for a coach/offensive system with Lincoln Riley that manufactures easy yards and pads stats imo. Hype machine. I'm afraid Caleb Williams will be just like them when he hits the NFL. B.U.S.T.

Joe Burrow or Vince Young are the best I've ever seen. Flip a coin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 23, 2023, 07:25:31 AM
Vince Young. 

End of story.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 07:35:21 AM
Vince Young.

End of story.
yeah, he really was an incredible player.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 07:40:34 AM
Your favorite network has randomly ranked the top 75 QBs in the 2000s. 

5. Joe Burrow.....they say Newton, Young, and Burrow had the best individual seasons, but Mayfield the best career.
speaking of Joe Burrow....


https://twitter.com/_MLFootball/status/1660118859804823554?s=20
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 23, 2023, 07:49:52 AM
speaking of Joe Burrow....


https://twitter.com/_MLFootball/status/1660118859804823554?s=20
Oops.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 07:56:44 AM
I think these "writers" are fairly clever at getting clicks in the off season, I suspect it's a bit of an art, and that is what they are paid to do.  Rankings is a good way to attract controversy, and controversy sells.  Somewhere I saw a "news" item about top ten beaches by "Dr. Beach".  OK, I guess, the funny thing is this list comes out every year, as if the top ten has totally changed from last year.  (I didn't open the item.)

One kind of list or ranking I would like is something like "best X you never heard of" on a local basis, like best Q or Cubans or whatever, in some hideaway off the beaten.  That could help because I probably had never heard of the place.

I'd trust folks around here a lot more than ESPN to "rank" players, but really, I just have a list ot top dudes at some position and don't get too bothered about ranking them.  They were all fantastic, just enjoy that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 23, 2023, 08:00:11 AM
yeah, he really was an incredible player.
Could have played at a high level at almost any position on the field. Incredible is almost an understatement here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2023, 08:37:06 AM
speaking of Joe Burrow....


https://twitter.com/_MLFootball/status/1660118859804823554?s=20
Is that not called "motivation"?  We know how UM would poke and barb players.  In learning how he operated in his 6 years at Florida, I read this and think he's wanting to light a fire under this kid, not just woefully being wrong about his ability level.
.
Plus, and it seems like everyone forgets this, Burrow was average in his year at LSU before Joe Brady got there. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2023, 08:43:56 AM
Could have played at a high level at almost any position on the field. Incredible is almost an understatement here.
Not bad for a guy that was benched in 2004, before figuring it out in the 2nd half vs OKSt that year. 
.
I get why people tend to look at someone's peak and rank them based on that, but I just take their average.  If I have a guy to lead my team in a big game against a good team, I'm not likely to get his peak.  That's basic logic.  What's his average, ho-hum production going to be, because that's the most likely outcome he'll provide.  
I think I'm in the minority on that.

The stats say VY was a shitty passer until 2005.  For all the flack Tebow gets, his passing production was LIGHT YEARS better than Young's. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 23, 2023, 08:50:13 AM
Could have played at a high level at almost any position on the field. Incredible is almost an understatement here.
Which makes Jeff Fisher's treatment of him in the League even more disgraceful than it already was.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 08:52:21 AM
It's interesting to list the college QBs who were great, or near great, and completely floundered in the NFL.  Does anyone here think Stetson Bennett will ever start an NFL game?  Of course it's possible, but I'd guess most here think he's more apt to hold a CB a while.  Aaron Murray put up great passing yards, over 3,000 in each of 4 years, didn't have much of a career later.  Tebow is another example.

Maybe the main factor is that 25 yard out pattern.  They are 2 mph slower than Stafford (or more) and it's critical.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 23, 2023, 08:56:16 AM
Not bad for a guy that was benched in 2004, before figuring it out in the 2nd half vs OKSt that year. 
  


Back then most UT fans were wanting to see him at WR. That would have been stupid.

As for the benching, well, that's called motivation.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 23, 2023, 09:19:40 AM
I think these "writers" are fairly clever at getting clicks in the off season, I suspect it's a bit of an art, and that is what they are paid to do.  Rankings is a good way to attract controversy, and controversy sells.  Somewhere I saw a "news" item about top ten beaches by "Dr. Beach".  OK, I guess, the funny thing is this list comes out every year, as if the top ten has totally changed from last year.  (I didn't open the item.)

One kind of list or ranking I would like is something like "best X you never heard of" on a local basis, like best Q or Cubans or whatever, in some hideaway off the beaten.  That could help because I probably had never heard of the place.

I'd trust folks around here a lot more than ESPN to "rank" players, but really, I just have a list ot top dudes at some position and don't get too bothered about ranking them.  They were all fantastic, just enjoy that.
A reminder that they produce a product to meet a demand. If the demand dries up, they’ll produce other products (which most like producing more anyway).

But if you have a product that is not difficult to produce and is highly demanded, capitalism says you’re gonna produce it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 09:31:22 AM
It's interesting, to me, that what's in demand often is something controversial bordering on the ridiculous.

And of course, something the audience wants to hear anyway is in demand, but with a mixed group of fans that isn't possible.

So, some "expert" posts a preseason top 25 that doesn't include UGA ... it would get "comments" ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Which makes Jeff Fisher's treatment of him in the League even more disgraceful than it already was.
Jeff Fisher was the biggest clown hack mediocre coach this side of Wayne Fontes. Only difference is he turned a fluke super bowl run with Steve McNair and Eddie George into a 20+ year NFL head coaching career. No idea how that moron lasted as long as he did in the NFL. 

Vince Young had immaturity problems for sure, maybe even mental health issues but Jeff Fisher pretty much ruined him. Where you get selected to in the NFL matters. VY might've wound up a HOF player had he been selected by, say someone like Andy Reid or Sean McVay. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 23, 2023, 02:04:10 PM
Back then most UT fans were wanting to see him at WR. That would have been stupid.

As for the benching, well, that's called motivation.
would have made a pro-bowl NFL TE
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 02:14:35 PM
I've posted about wine rankings before.  I even went through some training on how to rate wines using Parker's point scale.  Now, Parker forgot more about wine than I'll ever know, but his "system" to me is rather strange and anyone who chooses some wine because it got 92 points and another only got 90 is missing a point rather badly.  And anything he rates 95 and up almost certainly is tres cher and meant to be aged a while.  The other weird thing is he hardly ever goes below about 82, so really it's a 18 point scale and a point can be deducted because of clarity, for example.

My own ranking scale is simple and relates to whether I'd buy it again, and how much.  A really nice wine at a good price means I'd buy a case, that is a plus.

CD's Wine Scale

UGH pour it out
OK but I wouldn't buy any
OK I'd buy one bottle
I'd buy a case
I'd buy multiple cases.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 23, 2023, 02:26:29 PM
Back then most UT fans were wanting to see him at WR. That would have been stupid.

As for the benching, well, that's called motivation.

Huh?  Not a single UT fan I know wanted to see him play WR.  That was all an invention of the mediots trying to stir up shit, or the racist portions of rival fan bases implying he wasn't smart enough to play QB.  UT fans loved him at QB, and once he finally worked the wrinkles out of his game (you can also read that as, once Mack Brown finally let Vince be Vince), he disproved all of the mediots and the racists, too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 23, 2023, 02:30:59 PM
Yeah, the issue with a scale like that is that frankly anything below an 82 probably shouldn't even be marketed for sale. Unless he's giving 82s to Boone's Strawberry Farm stuff, which I'm guessing he deigns to be below him to even rate. 

The homebrew judging scale gives you a lot more room, because there are some things that will be submitted to a homebrew competition that are just flat out awful. It's a 50-point scale:




Unless it's absolutely atrocious, judges are usually asked not to give anything 13 or below, because it's borderline cruel--although I'd argue it's borderline cruel to submit that to a judging lol. 

But you VERY rarely see anything 45 or higher. In fact, seeing anything above 40 means you've made a superb beer. I've placed in competitions or advanced to the second round in a national competition with scores in the high 30s. If you can get into the 30s at all, it means that it's a beer those judges would probably happily drink multiple pints of. 

What was interesting is that I did an experiment with another brewer where I brewed one large batch of a beer, and then we split it into two fermenters. I have fermentation temp control capability, and he did not. The goal was to identify using one single variable (temp control) and determine how important it was. We submitted to multiple guys from the homebrew club, some of whom were certified judges. The control (mine) had scores of 39, 40, 35, and 41. The non-controlled (his) from the same judges in order had scores of 32, 29, 26, and 36. I suspect they were judging a bit leniently, but it was stark to see how much a single variable changed it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 23, 2023, 02:40:03 PM
Huh?  Not a single UT fan I know wanted to see him play WR.  That was all an invention of the mediots trying to stir up shit, or the racist portions of rival fan bases implying he wasn't smart enough to play QB.  UT fans loved him at QB, and once he finally worked the wrinkles out of his game (you can also read that as, once Mack Brown finally let Vince be Vince), he disproved all of the mediots and the racists, too.

The good UT fans like yourself, Burny, and Hooky said at the time it would be nuts to take the ball away from your best player. I remember you guys posting about this.

The media and casual fans did not take that position at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 23, 2023, 02:52:35 PM
The good UT fans like yourself, Burny, and Hooky said at the time it would be nuts to take the ball away from your best player. I remember you guys posting about this.

The media and casual fans did not take that position at all.
Casual fans didn't care one way or the other.  Like I said, the "Vince Young to WR" was an invention entirely of the mediots, and also a common message board talking point of racists in our rivals' fan bases.  The aggies actually nicknamed him "Radio" and commonly used that slur on their message boards.  Really upstanding folks, those guys...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 23, 2023, 02:56:58 PM
Anyway, I certainly agree with the overall point that Vince Young was an extremely talented guy, and I loved watching him play football.  I'll always cherish the 2005 season, but can't help but think about "what might have been" if he'd returned for his senior season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 03:13:45 PM
This score is achieved through a blind tasting, usually by sommeliers and experts, and consider factors such as:

I was looking for the rating score card and couldn't find it, we had them for our "training".   I recall that "nose" was worth 5 points and then "bouquet" was also worth a separate 5 points.  The difference was explained but I forget now.  Clarity was 5 points.  So, a wine with an indifferent nose and bouquet and clarity could lose 3-4-5 points just on that alone.  Flavor was ten points, so maybe it hung a 10 on flavor, but got cut for rather ancillary reasons (clarity can be important).  I dimly recall aging meant whether it was worthy of aging.  That's a tough one, an expensive wine drunk too young can be rather harsh and tannic, maybe the pros can see through that for age worthiness.  But most of us buy a wine and drink it within a month or so, I have a few laid down for later, but not many.  And I tend to age them too long anyway because there never seems to be a time to drink such an expensive wine.

I did this for my 50th birthday, we opened a bottle of 1966 Lafite I had for years.  The cork disintegrated and the wine was past its prime.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 23, 2023, 03:23:35 PM
Yeah, the full BJCP scoresheet is available here: https://legacy.bjcp.org/docs/SCP_BeerScoreSheet.pdf

You can see it breaks it down into aroma / appearance / flavor / mouthfeel / overall, with different maximum points for each. Also has a section to note any particular flaws or off flavors. 

I actually started going through some of the judging curriculum with some of the guys, including the session that we had where you could experience off flavors--the BJCP offers a kit where you dose light beer with the key flavors so you know how to identify them. One of them, butyric acid, was only by aroma; the flavor/aroma descriptor is "baby vomit". 

But I never took the tests to become a registered judge. I realized if I did, then I'd have the local competitions constantly haranguing me to come judge on my weekends lol... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2023, 03:26:02 PM
Butyric acid, or butanoic acid, in German is "butter sauer", which is what you smell in bad milk.

The worst thing I ever smelled was 1,4-butanedithiol, it would be a hellacious crowd control substance.

That four carbon chainlength often smells really bad.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on May 23, 2023, 03:52:58 PM
Anyway, I certainly agree with the overall point that Vince Young was an extremely talented guy, and I loved watching him play football.  I'll always cherish the 2005 season, but can't help but think about "what might have been" if he'd returned for his senior season.
I'm sure he does as well. Doesn't ever have to play for that windbag Jeff Fisher. Probably winds up going #1 or #2 in the next draft and plays for Oakland or Detroit. Nevermind. Lol. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2023, 08:26:42 PM
So in '05, what changed for VY as a passer?  Did Brown just let go of the reins?  A 35 point passer rating bump is pretty massive.
All the way to the end of '04, he was kind of like a cheeser video game QB:  he was most effective as a scrambler and only passed really as a change-up.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 23, 2023, 08:35:08 PM
I'm too lazy to Google it but didn't the Texas coaches say they basically stopped trying to coach him?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 23, 2023, 08:37:23 PM
new WRs?  New TEs?  New o-coordinator?  new QB coach?

O-line pass pro improvement?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 23, 2023, 09:09:07 PM
Fun fact:  VY's best passing season was worse than Tebow's worst.
.
I know this will seem silly, but a great comp for VY is Pat White.  To be fair to both, if I could be that effective running the ball (both at such volume and on a per-carry basis), I wouldn't worry about being a very good passer, either.  I really wouldn't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 23, 2023, 10:16:13 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw17BHzX0AATTWx?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 23, 2023, 10:28:17 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw1fGR5aYAE2yKi?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on May 23, 2023, 11:36:43 PM
Duke?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 23, 2023, 11:48:46 PM
speaking of Joe Burrow....


https://twitter.com/_MLFootball/status/1660118859804823554?s=20
Joe Burrow is a really odd case. A friend worked for the team his first year, and he apparently looked alike a career backup that first year. 

Speaks to the power of growth, I suppose. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2023, 02:04:55 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/JHEgFSg.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 24, 2023, 03:12:27 AM
I'm too lazy to Google it but didn't the Texas coaches say they basically stopped trying to coach him?
Yup pretty much.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 07:37:52 AM
Unusual Atlanta restaurant is home to best burger in America – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/entertainment/things-2-do/unusual-atlanta-restaurant-is-home-best-burger-america/DH2EZU4B6FDBTJOZNDAQVWOPCM/)

Of course, this also is a silly ranking, but I do like the winner.  What could go wrong with these ingredients?

 chopped brisket, melting pimento cheese, jalapeño mayo, bacon, red onion, and pickle, all on a bun.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 08:16:13 AM
it may look like a burger, but it's not a burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 08:16:40 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/348574066_1021730312535171_6185276068713187067_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=fcn8ehOBBzEAX_QNK1J&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDCOfBuXS8FA_p3Bo8QHBnxbgU6j0DuF6cSDKqZAEmTWA&oe=6472D04C)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 08:23:28 AM
it may look like a burger, but it's not a burger
Yeah, my reaction initially, and then I though "SO WHAT?".  I'm going to try it next time we go.  I usually get their brisket plate.  It's the first brisket I've ever had that was not dry and coarse, I had learned to avoid it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 08:33:42 AM
you could call it a burger if there was a ground beef patty in there someplace and the chopped brisket was a "topping"

but it's a chopped brisket sammich

I'd rather have that than a burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 08:37:44 AM
Whatever it is, I'm confident it's tasty.  Everything I've had there was really good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 08:41:13 AM
https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-value-colleges (https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-value-colleges)

Our best value colleges list is based on a combination of institutional and student survey data, including academic rigor, affordability, and career outcomes for graduates, among others.

PLEASE NOTE: This unranked list appears in alphabetical order. For more information on our ranking lists and selection process, check out our methodology.


_____________________________________

The University of Nebraska–Lincoln continues to be counted among the nation’s best value colleges.

Featured by The Princeton Review, the Best Value Colleges 2023 list includes 209 schools — 74 of which are, like UNL, public institutions. The list is built on a return-on-investment rating that considers more than 40 data points, ranging from alumni salaries and career impacts on the world to academic rigor and graduation rates.

Nebraska U is the Cornhusker State’s only public higher education institution in the 2023 Best Value Colleges list.

“Inclusion in The Princeton Review ranking reflects our greatest priorities as a land-grant institution — to provide access to an affordable college education to all Nebraskans and beyond,” said James Volkmer, interim associate vice chancellor for Academic Services and Enrollment Management. “Nebraska offers our students an outstanding, affordable education and experiential learning opportunities that lead to meaningful careers — all as one of the best tuition values among Big Ten schools and with less student debt than the national average.”

The rankings reinforce that the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, as the smallest public Big Ten institution, is uniquely positioned to meet its commitment to offering one-to-one connections where every person and every interaction matters. Key findings include the university’s ability to offer access to undergraduate research opportunities, internships and job placement supports.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 08:43:58 AM
I'm surprised anny private schools could make such a list, like Emory and Duke ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 24, 2023, 08:44:30 AM
Duke?
UCLA?

(https://i.imgur.com/r9WUCBT.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 24, 2023, 08:45:50 AM
it may look like a burger, but it's not a burger
Correct.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 08:47:30 AM
They can call it a banana if I can try it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2023, 09:23:53 AM
https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-value-colleges (https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-value-colleges)
I chuckled at this characterization of UGA students:


Student Body
"Students are generally white, upper-middle-class, smart, [and] involved, and [they] have a good time," "seem to be predominantly conservative," and "are usually involved in at least one organization whether it be Greek, a club, or sports." "The typical student at UGA is one who knows how and when to study but allows himself or herself to have a very active social life." The majority are southerners, with many students from within Georgia. "The stereotype is Southern, Republican, football-loving, and beer-drinking. While many, many of UGA's students do not fit this description, there is no lack of the above," and "there is a social scene for everyone in Athens." "There are a great number of atypical students in the liberal arts," which "creates a unique and exciting student body with greatly contrasting opinions."
Campus Life
Life at UGA seems to be a good mix of the two different worlds of sports and arts: football, frats, and tailgating on campus come together nicely with the coffee shops and music scene in downtown Athens. "On Saturday afternoons in the fall, nearly everyone on campus is at the football game. It's a way of life here." "Everybody really gets behind the team, and Saturdays in Athens feel like mini vacations." Fraternities and sororities dominate the party scene, but "there is definitely plenty to do, even if you don't go Greek." Students love to brag about the high number of bars per capita in Athens, but there's plenty more to boast about. "The Athens music and art scene is very inspiring, and there are tons of opportunities for creativity here." "Downtown Athens is fabulous! Whether you drink or don't drink, all are welcome and all congregate there." Campus life offers plenty of activity too. "Fun is a part of daily life...with a dozen intramural sports each semester...and many community activities (multiple movie theaters, bowling allies, golf course)." "Ultimate Frisbee, walks around the multiple parks, days lounging on North Campus, and spending lots of time downtown are a couple ways I like to have fun at school." "There are so many organizations that everyone can find a place that will feel like home or find a place to meet new people." "It's no secret that UGA knows how to party. However, most of the students know how to manage social and academic time."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 24, 2023, 10:28:42 AM
it may look like a burger, but it's not a burger
https://twitter.com/SPAMbrand/status/848580859586375680
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 24, 2023, 10:38:29 AM
I'd eat that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 10:38:58 AM
I like Spamburgers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on May 24, 2023, 11:30:15 AM
I'd give it a try. It looks delicious. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 11:36:28 AM
popular in Hawaii
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on May 24, 2023, 07:49:54 PM
Airlines.  

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/airlines-ranked-best-worst-2023-points-guy-where-loyalty-lie
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2023, 07:55:11 PM
you could call it a burger if there was a ground beef patty in there someplace and the chopped brisket was a "topping"

but it's a chopped brisket sammich

I'd rather have that than a burger
You wouldn't mesh the ground beef and the brisket?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 24, 2023, 08:13:40 PM
You wouldn't mesh the ground beef and the brisket? 
I will sometimes grind fresh brisket into my burger blend. But a smoked brisket isn't a burger. Shredded smoked brisket can be a burger topping, but it's not a burger. And you don't mix smoked brisket into fresh ground beef to make a brisket/burger mesh. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 24, 2023, 08:26:59 PM
(https://img2.10bestmedia.com/Images/Photos/338737/IMG-0287_55_660x440.JPG)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2023, 09:05:21 PM
I will sometimes grind fresh brisket into my burger blend. But a smoked brisket isn't a burger. Shredded smoked brisket can be a burger topping, but it's not a burger. And you don't mix smoked brisket into fresh ground beef to make a brisket/burger mesh.
I think you could mix in some brisket and it'll be okay as you cook the burger for a few min.  As long as you have some fatty bits, of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 11:14:47 PM
grinding raw brisket with tallow to make a ground beef patty is a burger

cooking, smoking. and/or BBQing the brisket before hand  and adding to raw burger probably isn't going to win many contests

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2023, 11:30:44 PM
grinding raw brisket with tallow to make a ground beef patty is a burger

cooking, smoking. and/or BBQing the brisket before hand  and adding to raw burger probably isn't going to win many contests


I'd eat it all.  :96:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2023, 11:41:47 PM
me too, but it's not a burger

the spam burger isn't a burger, but I enjoy them

when compiling a list of the best burgers, a crab cake on a hamburger bun isn't a burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2023, 11:45:17 PM

when compiling a list of the best burgers, a crab cake on a hamburger bun isn't a burger
I know what that is!!!

(https://i.imgur.com/MY5kXTk.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 07:51:12 AM
We can call it "best sandwich" and be on the up and up perhaps ...

the crab cakes thing would be good.  I once had crab cakes in the White House dining room.  They were quite good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 07:55:45 AM
"WE" would use the proper nomenclature

the bloke that compiled the list is an ignorant slut 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 08:04:15 AM
Agreed, as is the case with most such lists.

I bet we could all make a hamburger at home that would beat any real burgers out there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 08:32:58 AM
maybe not ALL of us

but I do have some Feddersen USA Wagyu ground beef in my fridge

https://ilovewagyu.com/ (https://ilovewagyu.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 08:55:06 AM
popular in Hawaii
Thanks to American servicemen who brought it there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 25, 2023, 09:11:34 AM
The All American Brisket Cheeseburger - House Ground & Smoked Brisket Burger. Dressed with American Cheese, Switch Special Sauce, and Pickles.

(https://i.imgur.com/6njUDMk.jpg)

http://www.stilesswitchbbq.com/daily-specials
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 09:15:20 AM
Brisket, short ribs and ribeye makes for an excellent grind.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 09:47:49 AM
Brisket, short ribs and ribeye makes for an excellent grind.
I stick with brisket and chuck. The idea of grinding a beautiful ribeye instead of dropping it on the grill in pure form seems like disrespecting it...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 09:49:53 AM
The All American Brisket Cheeseburger - House Ground & Smoked Brisket Burger. Dressed with American Cheese, Switch Special Sauce, and Pickles.

(https://i.imgur.com/6njUDMk.jpg)

http://www.stilesswitchbbq.com/daily-specials
now, that's a burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 09:50:38 AM
A buddy of mine wanted me to grill filet mignon for him, he went to the butcher and bought the whole thing, not really understanding what he wanted.  So we got 4-5 nice filets and the butcher asked if he wanted the trimmings ground, and he said I guess, he knows little about meat.  One night we had the filets which were nice, and the next night I grilled the "burger", best burger I ever had.  It was probably 40% fat.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 25, 2023, 09:52:27 AM
now, that's a burger
It is the Thursday special and now I know where I'm going for lunch today.

I stick with brisket and chuck. The idea of grinding a beautiful ribeye instead of dropping it on the grill in pure form seems like disrespecting it...
I'm pretty sure I've stated my unpopular opinion before, but I don't like grilled ribeye.  Just too fatty, and they don't cook long enough to render that fat.  I find the texture to be... well... disgusting.

Consequently, I think putting it in a hamburger grind is an excellent use for it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 09:58:04 AM
My wife likes ribeyes.  I'm fine with them, so I usually go that way with steak unless I get a tenderloin at Costco.  She doesn't know our beef cuts at all, I'd call it cote de bouef, but she doesn't.  (I know that term is really standing rib, I think.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 25, 2023, 10:01:07 AM
I stick with brisket and chuck. The idea of grinding a beautiful ribeye instead of dropping it on the grill in pure form seems like disrespecting it...
This is my feeling as well. Whenever I go to a restaurant and they explained that they have ground up a nice cut of meat, it’s just like “why?”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:02:18 AM
I stick with brisket and chuck. The idea of grinding a beautiful ribeye instead of dropping it on the grill in pure form seems like disrespecting it...
I'd rather eat a great burger than eat a ribeye steak, so it doesn't bother me at all.

My burgers never touch the grill. The piece of cast iron between the grates and meat ensures this. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:03:30 AM
I'm pretty sure I've stated my unpopular opinion before, but I don't like grilled ribeye.  Just too fatty, and they don't cook long enough to render that fat.  I find the texture to be... well... disgusting.

Consequently, I think putting it in a hamburger grind is an excellent use for it.
This.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:08:32 AM
Rankings?

The 15 Absolute Best Burgers In The US (mashed.com) (https://www.mashed.com/740114/the-absolute-best-burgers-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=The 15 Absolute Best Burgers In The US,of Burgers - Los Angeles ... More items)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:09:07 AM
Best Burgers in America: Top Burger Spots in the U.S. - Thrillist (https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/best-burgers-in-america)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 10:11:46 AM
Well we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. Ribeye is, to me, the best steak cut. 

But even beyond that, ribeye is expensive as hell. It's expensive as hell because it's flavorful but it's already tender enough to cook med-rare. I find things like short rib and chuck are MORE flavorful than ribeye but they're not tender unless they're slow-cooked--or if you grind them. 

I feel like throwing ribeye into a burger blend is just trying to make it unnecessarily fancy. And I'm a fancy fella in the kitchen, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 10:12:39 AM
The All American Brisket Cheeseburger - House Ground & Smoked Brisket Burger. Dressed with American Cheese, Switch Special Sauce, and Pickles.

(https://i.imgur.com/6njUDMk.jpg)

http://www.stilesswitchbbq.com/daily-specials

Looks really delicious, but seems like it's a little bit over-dressed with that sauce. With the amount of fat in ground brisket, it should be MORE than juicy enough w/o that...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 10:14:38 AM
The best steak I ever had out was a "tomahawk ribeye", which sounded to me like a weird thing indeed, but it was really good.  Of late, we've had more lamb chops than steak, I think bone in helps cooking.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 25, 2023, 10:15:43 AM
Looks really delicious, but seems like it's a little bit over-dressed with that sauce. With the amount of fat in ground brisket, it should be MORE than juicy enough w/o that...
Yeah that looks like too much sauce to me, too.  The burger itself is delicious, I can attest.

Oh and I loathe pickles, that rancid fruit of the devil will never touch any burger I consume.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 10:29:08 AM
All I can say is I'm happy when my wife and I were making the menu last night, we've got burgers on it. 

And that will be with my blend of chuck and the brisket point. 

I take the Amazing Ribs advice to heart that if you're grinding meat, you can't serve it medium rare or even medium... It's gotta be cooked through. But chuck + brisket point has more than enough fat that you can cook a burger to IT of 150 and it is still just oozing juice. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 10:31:07 AM
well, of the two, I'd rather grind ribeye for my burger than brisket
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 25, 2023, 10:33:54 AM
I'd rather eat smoked brisket than ribeye in any of its forms.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:39:53 AM
Well we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. Ribeye is, to me, the best steak cut.

But even beyond that, ribeye is expensive as hell. It's expensive as hell because it's flavorful but it's already tender enough to cook med-rare. I find things like short rib and chuck are MORE flavorful than ribeye but they're not tender unless they're slow-cooked--or if you grind them.

I feel like throwing ribeye into a burger blend is just trying to make it unnecessarily fancy. And I'm a fancy fella in the kitchen, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm good with that.

On the very rare occasion that I actually grill a ribeye, it goes to well. It's the only way to render the fat. I've not tried sous vide. Maybe that would help?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 10:40:54 AM
All I can say is I'm happy when my wife and I were making the menu last night, we've got burgers on it.

And that will be with my blend of chuck and the brisket point.

I take the Amazing Ribs advice to heart that if you're grinding meat, you can't serve it medium rare or even medium... It's gotta be cooked through. But chuck + brisket point has more than enough fat that you can cook a burger to IT of 150 and it is still just oozing juice.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 25, 2023, 10:43:30 AM
Oh man I am so dang hungry for that burger now.

In unrelated news, here's a ranking of the best breakfast foods.

https://colonydiner.com/blog/food-themes/top-breakfast-foods/

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 25, 2023, 10:51:37 AM

On the very rare occasion that I actually grill a ribeye, it goes to well. 
(https://media.tenor.com/jTKDchcLtrcAAAAd/walter-white-walter-crying.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 10:55:44 AM
I'm good with that.

On the very rare occasion that I actually grill a ribeye, it goes to well. It's the only way to render the fat. I've not tried sous vide. Maybe that would help?
Not a fan of sous vide on ribeye. I prefer a high heat grill. 

Granted I find that a high heat grill will soften the fat on a ribeye but not entirely render it out--but I like that because ribeyes have soft fat to begin with, and I'm not afraid of a little fat. 

But I don't really find that sous vide makes any appreciable difference to the fat in a ribeye. I suppose you could hold it at med-rare temp for many hours, but I think you'd screw up the texture of the meat trying to do it that way. 

The only actual steak I like to use sous vide for is filet. It's already lean so rendering fat isn't necessary, and if you want a very nice edge-to-edge med-rare it's really easy to do. But I don't really like filet much, because of course it's so lean. It's not particularly flavorful. IMHO the allure of filet is tenderness, not flavor. 

I have tried sous vide for tri tip, which can be really interesting because tri tip is naturally tough and a longer (12 hour) sous vide bath can actually turn it pretty darn tender, but I usually just grill it because when sliced properly against the grain, it doesn't really eat tough, much like flank steak. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 10:59:17 AM
I really like flat irons for flavor.

The Most Popular Cuts Of Steak Ranked Worst To Best (tastingtable.com) (https://www.tastingtable.com/804375/the-most-popular-cuts-of-steak-ranked-worst-to-best/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 11:01:33 AM
my ribeye won't be cooked thru and neither will my burger

I like it pink!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 11:02:26 AM
I really like flat irons for flavor.

The Most Popular Cuts Of Steak Ranked Worst To Best (tastingtable.com) (https://www.tastingtable.com/804375/the-most-popular-cuts-of-steak-ranked-worst-to-best/)
Yep. My favorite cut.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 11:04:40 AM
much like a sirloin 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 11:07:43 AM
Flat iron is delicious. We haven't been doing them often b/c they don't sell them at Costco, but we did a flat iron a little over a week ago after seeing the below recipe in Food Network Magazine:

https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchen/grilled-flat-iron-steaks-with-herb-caper-sauce-14197424

Probably need to get them back in the rotation. VERY flavorful and moderately tender (when sliced correctly) but better priced than some other cuts. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 11:17:16 AM
24 Heisman Trophy Winners Who Were Legendary Busts in the NFL (And 10 Who Became Stars)

https://thesportsdrop.com/cl/heisman-trophy-winners-who-were-busts-in-the-nfl?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=AP7B-0511_ART302_CB_HeismanNFL_V2V5&fbclid=IwAR388FWQmwouzM-KnzOdAfL8S3vH-VgE0TBShRA5kekNvioSQArMBzECWqk (https://thesportsdrop.com/cl/heisman-trophy-winners-who-were-busts-in-the-nfl?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=AP7B-0511_ART302_CB_HeismanNFL_V2V5&fbclid=IwAR388FWQmwouzM-KnzOdAfL8S3vH-VgE0TBShRA5kekNvioSQArMBzECWqk)

Bust: Johnny Manziel (2014)

The Browns cut bait with Manziel after just two seasons and he never got another chance in the NFL
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 25, 2023, 11:19:34 AM
Kroger has them here.  The other good thing is my wife likes steak "blu rare", and I lean more to medium rare to rare.  I can grill the thick part blu rare and get the thinner parts done enough for me.  Yeah, I could cut it in half also.  I slice them after grilling and resting very thin.  They do need some tenderizing of some sort.

I saw something about using baking soda for that, I didn't read the article though.  That would add a lot of sodium if not rinsed out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 25, 2023, 11:49:23 AM
my ribeye won't be cooked thru and neither will my burger

I like it pink!
If you're ever out this way, I'll challenge you to taste test my burger cooked to 150*. 

Not that it'll make you a convert (b/c you can't cook a burger that way with supermarket too-lean ground beef), but I think you'll at least appreciate that it's delicious as hell even without being pink. 

Agreed on ribeye of course. Anything beyond med-rare should be grounds for public flogging. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 25, 2023, 12:09:54 PM
Flog away!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2023, 12:29:00 PM
oh, I've had plenty of great juicy burgers that were cooked to 150

but, why chance it?
I'm planning to get out your way
the new job put me back a couple years
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 26, 2023, 11:14:55 AM
Got this email from Weber today.

(https://i.imgur.com/zO2fXzr.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 11:23:05 AM
Get grillin
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 26, 2023, 11:30:38 AM


good grief. coleslaw needs to be stopped. 



(https://i.imgflip.com/7n8lq8.jpg)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 11:34:03 AM
I like coleslaw as a side
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 26, 2023, 11:49:32 AM
Save the blue cheese for the hot wings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 26, 2023, 11:52:03 AM
A really great burger doesn't need much on it, at times nothing at all.  We have a place we like called Killer Burger.  There is a Shake Shack a block away, it's decent.  And Farm Burger is pretty good.  But they are so easy to fix at home ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 26, 2023, 11:52:59 AM
I like coleslaw as a side
I like it on a pulled pork burger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 26, 2023, 11:54:21 AM
The pulled pork in Carolina nearly always came with slaw.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 11:55:11 AM
on the side
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 26, 2023, 12:12:37 PM
Save the blue cheese for the hot wings.
Starting around 10 years ago, all of the winning "best burger" competitions were won by bleu cheese burgers, so it became a whole big thing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 26, 2023, 12:24:21 PM
on the side
Not in my experiences.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 26, 2023, 12:30:51 PM
The pulled pork in Carolina nearly always came with slaw.
on the side
Not in my experiences.

Yeah, they put it directly on the sandwich.  I have to ask them to leave it off.  Pulled pork is delicious on its own, it doesn't need to be sauced with that vinegary shit they use, and it doesn't need cole slaw all over it.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 26, 2023, 12:32:00 PM
I like blue cheese on a burger.  Not every time I order a burger, but it's nice as a change of pace.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 26, 2023, 12:36:40 PM
Yeah, they put it directly on the sandwich.  I have to ask them to leave it off.  Pulled pork is delicious on its own, it doesn't need to be sauced with that vinegary shit they use, and it doesn't need cole slaw all over it.


I like it plain and with slaw.  The thing is, if they serve it on the side, you get to choose what to do.  No need to make the choice for us and plop it on before serving it.
My very favorite (yes, because I grew up eating it) is very finely shredded pork with that vinegary shit infused in it.  Throw that on a bun and it's heaven.  
.
I'd label it east-central GA BBQ.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 12:45:15 PM
yup, 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 26, 2023, 02:24:46 PM
The vinagery stuff is usually termed eastern Carolina style.  I first encountered it in Chapel Hill and thought it weird indeed.  I got used to it, and then grew to like it, something akin to Cincy "chili".  Is it my favorite?  Not really, but I like variation so getting every so often is good.

My wife orders the same thing at nearly every place we dine.  I work my way through the menu.  We had an excellent lunch at Pasta da Pulcinella today, sitting at their bar.  They had tables outside that were appealing also, but the bar is super nice.

And two major arteries here are blocked off because a construction crane is tilted.  Again.  Traffic was a mess, even for here, but we were walking.  The downtown connector was not connecting to much of anything.  And there is a major jazz festival across the street this weekend.

Atlanta Jazz Festival (atljazzfest.com) (https://atljazzfest.com/)

Atlanta Jazz Festival is regarded as one of the largest FREE jazz festivals in the country. An annual celebration of the music, culture and art of jazz begins in April and culminates each Memorial Day weekend, with an outdoor festival featuring jazz artists from all over the world.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 26, 2023, 02:32:01 PM
The vinagery stuff is usually termed eastern Carolina style.  I first encountered it in Chapel Hill and thought it weird indeed.  I got used to it, and then grew to like it, something akin to Cincy "chili".  Is it my favorite?  Not really, but I like variation so getting every so often is good.
Yeah I'm sure it's regional, but most places I've been to throughout the SE that serve pulled pork, sauce it.

It's just so unnecessary.  When I make pulled pork I catch the drippings from the meat as it cooks, and then I strain those drippings and recombine a portion of it with the meat when I'm pulling it. Keeps it so moist and delicious, bursting with its own flavor.  It's just worlds better than the version where it gets sauced. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 26, 2023, 03:07:50 PM
Yeah I'm sure it's regional, but most places I've been to throughout the SE that serve pulled pork, sauce it.

It's just so unnecessary.  When I make pulled pork I catch the drippings from the meat as it cooks, and then I strain those drippings and recombine a portion of it with the meat when I'm pulling it. Keeps it so moist and delicious, bursting with its own flavor.  It's just worlds better than the version where it gets sauced. 
Interesting. I’ve consumed a fair amount of barbecue in the southeast, I don’t often have the slaw right on the sandwich.

of course, only some of that has been in North Carolina, where that is much more the style. I will ride for South Carolina sauce, but in general the structuring of Texas BBQ far outpaces North Carolina BBQ.

i’ve actually had some sandwiches where the slaw is a pretty good compliment, but it has to be a very particular kind and work in another flavor or two.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 26, 2023, 03:11:58 PM
There is a chain both here and in Cincy called "City BBQ" which is pretty decent, and the sauce and the slaw both come as a side.  I don't put slaw on the sandwich because it cools the meat down.  They have four main kinds of sauces at City.  We went pretty often in Cincy.  The Cincy main BBQ place is Montgomery Ribs, which is not bad, very chique now, but slathered with the red sauce.  They have one on the river which has some nice views.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 03:58:40 PM
It's just so unnecessary.  When I make pulled pork I catch the drippings from the meat as it cooks, and then I strain those drippings and recombine a portion of it with the meat when I'm pulling it. Keeps it so moist and delicious, bursting with its own flavor.  It's just worlds better than the version where it gets sauced. 
dude, some folks put ketchup on things
the vinegary sauce is much better than that
but, I agree.  It's not really needed.
Unless it's dry, of course
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 26, 2023, 05:10:28 PM
The best BBQ is going to have an acid component. Without it, still good, but a bit too bland for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 26, 2023, 05:19:35 PM
Yep, when I make pulled pork, I first pull it and then season with apple cider vinegar, salt and pepper.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 26, 2023, 05:31:26 PM
I enjoy a little heat with most things like that
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 26, 2023, 06:59:18 PM
Which Carolina uses the mustard-based sauce?  
I'm not a huge fan, but it's good as a change-up sometimes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 26, 2023, 07:04:03 PM
The best BBQ is going to have an acid component. Without it, still good, but a bit too bland for me.
Exactly.
The pulled pork I mentioned has that infused in it.  Like the vinegar is part of the broth and is infused into the meat.  

Yeah I'm sure it's regional, but most places I've been to throughout the SE that serve pulled pork, sauce it.

It's just so unnecessary.  When I make pulled pork I catch the drippings from the meat as it cooks, and then I strain those drippings and recombine a portion of it with the meat when I'm pulling it. Keeps it so moist and delicious, bursting with its own flavor.  It's just worlds better than the version where it gets sauced. 
It's not a sauce.  When you have the finished product, you can grab a handful of it and it's just well-flavored meat, not saucy or heavily dripping.  It's moist and finely-shredded.  It clumps.  

Even then, some people will put a sauce on it, or slaw, or both.  But it doesn't NEED anything.  It's great as-is. 


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 26, 2023, 08:38:43 PM
A lot of the vinegar sauce comes out of the tradition of whole hog cooking, which are difficult to season or cook uniformly. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 26, 2023, 08:56:28 PM
Which Carolina uses the mustard-based sauce? 
I'm not a huge fan, but it's good as a change-up sometimes.
South Carolina. Lots of Germans - achtung baby
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 26, 2023, 09:04:39 PM
Which Carolina uses the mustard-based sauce? 
I'm not a huge fan, but it's good as a change-up sometimes.
SC, though most places have a few options. 

It's intersting. SC tends to be more side-heavy, while NC has a more limited set, which includes fries. SC also does buffets, which have their ups and downs. 

Of the styles I've had:
Texas
SC
Generic southern
KC
NC
The sad, sad, SAD attempts at upscale Texas-esque on the west coast (which is weird, becuase I've had Texas style that slapped in NYC of all places)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 26, 2023, 11:45:56 PM
There is a chain both here and in Cincy called "City BBQ" which is pretty decent, and the sauce and the slaw both come as a side.  I don't put slaw on the sandwich because it cools the meat down.  They have four main kinds of sauces at City.  We went pretty often in Cincy.  The Cincy main BBQ place is Montgomery Ribs, which is not bad, very chique now, but slathered with the red sauce.  They have one on the river which has some nice views.
City B plops it on there too.


(https://www.citybbq.com/sites/default/files/styles/372x282/public/2022-12/NYD2023freedelivery_blog.jpg?itok=HHQ_rr_H)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 27, 2023, 07:57:22 AM
I don't know the point of a sandwich without some sort of pickled vegetable on it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 27, 2023, 08:02:59 AM
I like to eat pulled pork with a fork, to be honest.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 08:10:17 AM
I don't know the point of a sandwich without some sort of pickled vegetable on it.
fine, but I've never seen pickles piled that high on a sammich
shouldn't be 50/50
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 27, 2023, 08:48:22 AM
I'm fine with a breakfast burger if the egg is left off of it.

Breakfast Burgers Are a Thing, and These Are the Most Tempting in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/breakfast-burgers-are-a-thing-and-these-are-the-most-tempting-in-america/ss-AAOiu2s?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7ae3b8080b6f44ed802c675c172a8832&ei=17)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 08:54:18 AM
I like a runny egg on mine
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 27, 2023, 09:00:21 AM
Yuck.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on May 27, 2023, 09:06:21 AM
Liquid gold.   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 27, 2023, 09:06:57 AM
I'm fine with a breakfast burger if the egg is left off of it.

Breakfast Burgers Are a Thing, and These Are the Most Tempting in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/breakfast-burgers-are-a-thing-and-these-are-the-most-tempting-in-america/ss-AAOiu2s?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7ae3b8080b6f44ed802c675c172a8832&ei=17)
:67:

The egg lobby might hear you!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 09:36:59 AM
FORE!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 27, 2023, 09:49:00 AM
I'm fine with a breakfast burger if the egg is left off of it.

Breakfast Burgers Are a Thing, and These Are the Most Tempting in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/breakfast-burgers-are-a-thing-and-these-are-the-most-tempting-in-america/ss-AAOiu2s?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7ae3b8080b6f44ed802c675c172a8832&ei=17)
We have to band together!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 27, 2023, 09:49:51 AM
I don't know the point of a sandwich without some sort of pickled vegetable on it.
I don't understand why anything needs to be pickled.
Pickles, I guess.  
I find pickled and fermented things gross.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 27, 2023, 09:52:58 AM
Pickling originally of course was for preservation, akin to salt curing, drying, smoking, etc.  That is why a thing has to be pickled.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 27, 2023, 10:48:09 AM
Not no more....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 27, 2023, 10:58:16 AM
Our local Korean Fried Chicken place has a side that is mac and cheese plus kimchi and bacon bits.  It is surprisingly delicious for me.  Kimchi of course can tend to being rather spicy.  

Preserved duck eggs, also known as century or thousand year old egg, is a traditional preserved food created before the advent of modern refrigeration. Fresh duck eggs are cured using a proprietary clay mixture that transforms the egg whites into a transparent black jelly with a turquoise green yolk.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 04:28:57 PM
yum
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 07:11:25 PM
just enjoyed a nice ribeye

as most of you know, not my favorite steak

but, on a 500 degree grill 5 minutes per side, it was delicious.

brought to 130 degrees on my thermometer, (I know, cheating)

then rested to 144 degrees

it was a much better than average ribeye, not too much fat
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 27, 2023, 07:23:15 PM
Bullcrap you're eating Oscar Meyer Bologna on Wonderbread with mayo over the sink. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 07:25:10 PM
with an ice cold bud heavy from the golf course in a 16 oz alum bottle
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 27, 2023, 07:36:31 PM
Hey I had that sammich a while back washed it down with a Leinenkugel
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 07:37:38 PM
bragger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2023, 07:38:04 PM
https://youtu.be/1P17ct4e5OE
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 27, 2023, 07:49:43 PM
I don't understand why anything needs to be pickled.
Pickles, I guess. 
I find pickled and fermented things gross.
That's a pretty wide range of foods. But whatever, everyone likes and hates something. I've been thinking a lot about the range of tastes out there. I don't particularly care for sweet foods. My wife isn't nearly as into spiciness as I am. That said, BBQ is usually pretty rich and pairs extremely well with something crunchy and acidic. A good sandwich is going to hit a bunch of your senses. A good slaw hits the crunchy, acidic, creamy, sweet, and cool all in once, so I'm a fan.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 28, 2023, 06:35:30 AM
Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 28, 2023, 06:37:00 AM
A skunk sat on a stump. The stump said the skunk stunk. The skunk said the stump stunk. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 28, 2023, 07:02:13 AM
A good sandwich is going to hit a bunch of your senses. A good slaw hits the crunchy, acidic, creamy, sweet, and cool all in once, so I'm a fan.
Winner,winner chicken dinner,there are so many different things you can do customize one just with the bread,one could also include a burger in there. Mentioned years ago in one of these threads about this Old Deli around me that had this marvelous Submarine Sammich. Seemed like they stopped in every European Capital and brought back the best cured/smoked/fresh meats & cheeses plus all the trappings olives,pickles,relish,dressings,salsas and such. I'm slobbering like a St Bernard just thinking about it. If I knew I had one day left - my choice would be to wold down as many of those as possible
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 28, 2023, 08:24:21 AM
We had lunch yesterday at one of our favorite Indian restaurants (it's either #1 or #2 on my list).  They call it "saag thali", and the nice thing to me is it comes with 5 little bowls with different tastes in it.  I really like their saag, I got shrimp saag.  And it comes with naan of course, which is a bit plain but a nice accompaniment, and rice.

My wife noted it's a bit like tapas, which we also enjoy often but the best place for it means driving the car about 3 miles.  I like having a different flavor in each bite, something akin to having slaw on a PP sandwich I suppose.  Contrasts = interest.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 29, 2023, 09:56:35 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Z8X3eOB.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 29, 2023, 10:08:21 AM
FORE!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 29, 2023, 10:12:48 AM
(https://photos1.blogger.com/hello/113/2202/1024/Halloween2004%20086.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 29, 2023, 10:29:03 AM
Huge burgers are amusing and very "American", but even the triples I had back in the day weren't very good in my view.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 29, 2023, 11:58:44 AM


The number of patties is not necessarily relative to the size of the burger. 


(https://visitpago.com/wp-content/uploads/Denny.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 29, 2023, 12:08:25 PM
Yeah, that one wouldn't appeal to me either.  A good burger to me has balance, much like a fine wine.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 29, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
A list.

The Most Delicious Cheap Sandwich in Every State (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/recipes/the-most-delicious-cheap-sandwich-in-every-state/ss-AA10tTdB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98c811531fff4671ab64872f44f96855&ei=39#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 08:04:54 AM
Never heard of many of these places.

8 Chain Restaurants with the Best Burgers (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/8-chain-restaurants-with-the-best-burgers/ss-AA1bNyRo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bde5f5fc40f84ef3aacf94ef8bdf4253&ei=14)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:23:13 AM
The middle scale steak places usually do have a decent burger, I don't think they are awesome at all.  An upscale steak place near us has "Wagyu" burgers for $10 with fries, and they are quite good.  Their steaks run $49 and up, mostly up.  (I see they charge $11 for one shrimp on top of a steak, tater tots are $19 ....)

STK Atlanta | Steakhouse, Seafood, & Drinks (stksteakhouse.com) (https://stksteakhouse.com/venues/atlanta/#venue-menu-section)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 08:25:44 AM
"Wagyu" burgers for $10 with fries

but tots are $19???

I would order the burger, but never order the tots.  no matter how good they are
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:34:17 AM
Exactly, I think the $10 burger is only available at lunch, but whatever.  We've been to dinner a couple times, it's just too expensive, and not worth it.  It's VERY popular with young African American females wearing short tight dresses, which I suspect means some athletes go there fairly often.  The music gets too loud at night for us.

It's basically a nightclub without dancing.

The famous old steakhouse here is called Bones, we went once, it was OK, but tres cher.  It looked to me like, once again, a lot of folks were there to see and be seen.  The waiter was rather pompous I thought.  As we've all noted, it's just too easy and much cheaper to grill a steak at home.  We're headed to Costco here shortly and I may get some steaks, they do pretty well I find, and my daughter from Vancouver is coming in tonight for a conference.

The 15 Best Steakhouses In Atlanta (atlantanmagazine.com) (https://atlantanmagazine.com/best-steakhouses-atlanta)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 30, 2023, 08:36:31 AM
A list.

The Most Delicious Cheap Sandwich in Every State (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/recipes/the-most-delicious-cheap-sandwich-in-every-state/ss-AA10tTdB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98c811531fff4671ab64872f44f96855&ei=39#image=1)
Well if they deliver I'll get the sink ready
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 08:37:50 AM
I want to go here.

Premium Steaks in Tampa | Largest Wine Collection | Bern's Steak House (bernssteakhouse.com) (https://bernssteakhouse.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:38:43 AM
The sandwich list was perhaps useful in that I'd never heard of the sandwich shop which is pretty near us, so I will try and give it a shot.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 08:44:13 AM
Tunisian tuna sandwich box. The sandwich comes with capers, preserved lemon, potato, hard-boiled egg, onion, tomato, and spicy harissa sauce on a demi-baguette along with a fruit cup, a signature cookie and a bag of chips for $19.25.

Cheap?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:45:15 AM
I hadn't seen that price, not cheap to me anyway.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 08:46:41 AM
Iowa: New Pioneer Food Co-op

Iowa City At New Pioneer, Cashew on a Hot Tin Roof ($8.99) is made with sourdough bread slathered with a spicy jalapeno cashew cheese. Both are made in-house. It's topped with onions, peppers, tomatoes, and spinach — all organic. They offer gluten-free breads and have carved out a real name for great vegan and vegetarian food in cow country.
_____________________________________

nope, not buying it
now I don't trust the source
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:47:35 AM
Atlanta among the top 5 cities for gardening – naked? Here’s how other Georgia cities fared – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/atlanta-among-top-5-cities-gardening-naked-heres-how-other-georgia-cities-fared/LWLXIBU3JFFDTAJW62KE6FKRGY/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1qnpTTvS8jTeFw6uoVuI9ZOFFa_-ZrdF6DHRqxzoUV59p4fj9U6dI-Z_c)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 08:49:24 AM
Iowa: New Pioneer Food Co-op

Iowa City At New Pioneer, Cashew on a Hot Tin Roof ($8.99) is made with sourdough bread slathered with a spicy jalapeno cashew cheese. Both are made in-house. It's topped with onions, peppers, tomatoes, and spinach — all organic. They offer gluten-free breads and have carved out a real name for great vegan and vegetarian food in cow country.
_____________________________________

nope, not buying it
now I don't trust the source
That sounds gross. This doesn't.


Nebraska: Banhwich Café

Lincoln
At Banhwich Café (https://www.banhwichcafe.com/), order the Spicy Thai Chicken (Ga Thai) for $6.75 made of shredded chicken or fried tofu served up with its in-house Thai cilantro sauce in a traditional Vietnamese-style sandwich topped with aioli, cucumbers, pickled daikon, and finely shredded carrots and jalapeños on either a fresh baguette or croissant, or in lettuce wraps for the carb watchers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 08:51:38 AM
I will try that
and less than $7
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 08:54:08 AM
I'd go $10 for a REALLY good sandwich somewhere, but that's about it.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 08:56:21 AM
I'd go $10 for a REALLY good sandwich somewhere, but that's about it. 
That's what they cost at Subway now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 09:05:22 AM
We have not been in a long while to Subway or JJs etc.  There is a local place that speciaizes in cheesesteaks I want to try.  Each time we walk by we're headed to somewhere else.  These prices are pretty decent.

Woody's CheeseSteaks (woodyscheesesteaks.com) (https://woodyscheesesteaks.com/BHmenu.html)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 09:14:19 AM
I do like a good cheesesteak
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 10:04:09 AM
That sounds gross. This doesn't.


Nebraska: Banhwich Café

Lincoln
At Banhwich Café (https://www.banhwichcafe.com/), order the Spicy Thai Chicken (Ga Thai) for $6.75 made of shredded chicken or fried tofu served up with its in-house Thai cilantro sauce in a traditional Vietnamese-style sandwich topped with aioli, cucumbers, pickled daikon, and finely shredded carrots and jalapeños on either a fresh baguette or croissant, or in lettuce wraps for the carb watchers.


I love banh mi.  Of all the options listed, I'd go with the grilled pork (Thit Nuong) and add pork pate' spread.  So good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 10:45:02 AM
A recent survey of athletic department expenses across the country gives high marks to the University of Nebraska. T.J. Altimore broke down the numbers to analyze which athletic departments across the country are incurring the most debt, “fueled by a wild arms race in facilities.”

Nebraska was the only public FBS athletic department with “no subsidy from the school, and no athletic department debt.” However, when looking at the Big Ten, five schools currently have over $200 million in athletic department debt.

The worst conference offender was the University of Illinois, with $294 million in athletic department debt. Followed by Michigan at $263 million, Iowa at $245 million, Ohio State at $241 million, and Minnesota at $218 million in debt.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/survey-of-athletic-department-expenses-gives-nebraska-high-marks/ar-AA1bQOLS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d302f939cabe46fe931d91b1e44509c7&ei=59 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/survey-of-athletic-department-expenses-gives-nebraska-high-marks/ar-AA1bQOLS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d302f939cabe46fe931d91b1e44509c7&ei=59)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 01:02:11 PM
I walked over to get a haircut and pass by Woody's on the way back and had a cheesesteak, with peppers, onions, it was $10.25.  I'd give it a solid B, I'll go back, it's a kitchy kind of local place that I tend to like, service was extremely fast, it had steady business.

(https://i.imgur.com/Xkg2UJx.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 30, 2023, 03:39:28 PM
Tunisian tuna sandwich box. The sandwich comes with capers, preserved lemon, potato, hard-boiled egg, onion, tomato, and spicy harissa sauce on a demi-baguette along with a fruit cup, a signature cookie and a bag of chips for $19.25.

Cheap?
I wouldn't eat that if you paid me $19.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 03:41:13 PM
capers, preserved lemon, potato, hard-boiled egg, onion, tomato, and spicy harissa sauce on a demi-baguette

I like everything on that list.  I probably would like the sauce.  I'll give it a whirl maybe someday, but it's pricey.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 03:42:47 PM
I'm guessing you've had more expensive lunches
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 03:45:13 PM
I'm guessing you've had more expensive lunches
I have, no doubt, but it wasn't sandwiches.  The most expensive one I had, probably, had menus without prices on it for everyone except our friend (who is a really good friend).  He told me later it was over a thousand euros, for four.

When I was paying, just the two of us, we hit some in the hundreds range a few times.  They were memorable.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 03:46:57 PM
Heck, these days a BBQ lunch for two with tea or soft drinks can hit $80 pretty quick.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 03:48:25 PM
Fox Bros, would be maybe $50 if we had beer.  Now I'm hungry, though that cheesesteak is still present.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 30, 2023, 04:15:03 PM
Heck, these days a BBQ lunch for two with tea or soft drinks can hit $80 pretty quick.
They get you on the combos. Start adding extra meats, sides, a little banana pudding and it hits you. 

Key is to split the big platters between 2 or 3. There’s the money. (Assuming they do platters and not just by the pound. Then they got all your money)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 04:26:56 PM
lunches have been expensive IMO for a while.

I skipped a lot of lunches back when I was hourly and working plenty of overtime
the past 20 years I many times had microwave popcorn and a coke in the breakroom for about a dollar

I've saved enough on lunches to be able to retire at 59 1/2
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 04:31:05 PM
lunches have been expensive IMO for a while.

I skipped a lot of lunches back when I was hourly and working plenty of overtime
the past 20 years I many times had microwave popcorn and a coke in the breakroom for about a dollar

I've saved enough on lunches to be able to retire at 59 1/2
We don't go out too often, but when we do, it's generally for lunch at a place we can get to by boat.
Hurricane Ian cut the options in half, essentially.

We don't eat after 4PM anymore.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 04:44:18 PM
I try not to eat after 7pm, but it happens

I skip breakfast and lunch, eat one meal about 5:50-6:30pm

2 cups of coffee in the morning and then water until 5:30.

if I'm golfing I have a few beers and if I'm golfing late, it could be 8 or 9 before I eat.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 04:45:44 PM
I find we sleep better when we don't eat later.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 04:52:58 PM
agreed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 05:02:18 PM
They get you on the combos. Start adding extra meats, sides, a little banana pudding and it hits you.

Key is to split the big platters between 2 or 3. There’s the money. (Assuming they do platters and not just by the pound. Then they got all your money)
I actually much prefer buying by the pound.  On the platter they might be providing more variety but they're invariably providing less food per $. That's an ages-old restaurant trick, we did the same thing at our restaurant 30 years ago.

The real problem is that brisket at a decent place is now $30-$34 per pound and one beef rib tips in at almost $40.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 05:07:01 PM
A heavy meal later is not usually a good idea.  Fairly often we have a nice lunch a bit late and then salad for dinner, maybe with some bread and soft cheese.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 30, 2023, 05:07:14 PM
The real problem is that brisket at a decent place is now $30-$34 per pound and one beef rib tips in at almost $40.
Jesus. I guess that's why it's smart to just do it at home lol...

Brisket taquitos on the menu tonight. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 30, 2023, 05:12:00 PM
Jesus. I guess that's why it's smart to just do it at home lol...

Brisket taquitos on the menu tonight.
No kidding!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 30, 2023, 05:27:27 PM
I actually much prefer buying by the pound.  On the platter they might be providing more variety but they're invariably providing less food per $. That's an ages-old restaurant trick, we did the same thing at our restaurant 30 years ago.

The real problem is that brisket at a decent place is now $30-$34 per pound and one beef rib tips in at almost $40.
Hmm. That’s probably true, but I might not care?

When I get BBQ, I actively want variety. And there’s little chance I won’t eat enough, so even if the dollar per pound doesn’t align, I’m possibly more satisfied.

Unless, in theory, assembling an ah la carte platter is cheaper.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 05:28:26 PM
Jesus. I guess that's why it's smart to just do it at home lol...

Brisket taquitos on the menu tonight.
Absolutely.  It's insane.  Raw prices for brisket have gone up maybe $2 - $3 per lb on average over the time period.  Cooked product prices have gone up from maybe $18/lb to over $30/lb.  Some places like Franklin have just about doubled in the finished good price.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 05:30:37 PM
Hmm. That’s probably true, but I might not care?

When I get BBQ, I actively want variety. And there’s little chance I won’t eat enough, so even if the dollar per pound doesn’t align, I’m possibly more satisfied.

Unless, in theory, assembling an ah la carte platter is cheaper.
It would definitely be cheaper.  Only limitation would be, how granular you can purchase.  Everybody will sell in 1/2 lb increments but there's a smaller subset that'll allow 1/4 lb increments.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 05:35:21 PM
fox-bros_westside-menu_03UPDATED PRICING (foxbrosbbq.com) (http://www.foxbrosbbq.com/downloads/fox-bros_westside_menu-food.pdf)

Classic combo is $22 for 2 meats and 2 sides.  It fills me up.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 30, 2023, 05:39:18 PM
more than $19
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 30, 2023, 05:45:06 PM
It would definitely be cheaper.  Only limitation would be, how granular you can purchase.  Everybody will sell in 1/2 lb increments but there's a smaller subset that'll allow 1/4 lb increments.


Hmm. Looking at a place I used to live, that almost worked, save for the brisket platter up charge. Will take that forward.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 30, 2023, 05:47:13 PM
fox-bros_westside-menu_03UPDATED PRICING (foxbrosbbq.com) (http://www.foxbrosbbq.com/downloads/fox-bros_westside_menu-food.pdf)

Classic combo is $22 for 2 meats and 2 sides.  It fills me up.
Is there a brisket up charge?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 30, 2023, 05:49:10 PM
Not on the classic combo, that is what I usually order, pulled pork and brisket and Brunswick stew and tots.  Or slaw.  If we both get beer, it's going over $50 obviously, my wife likes "sweet tea".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 30, 2023, 07:08:02 PM
Absolutely.  It's insane.  Raw prices for brisket have gone up maybe $2 - $3 per lb on average over the time period.  Cooked product prices have gone up from maybe $18/lb to over $30/lb.  Some places like Franklin have just about doubled in the finished good price.
Yeah, that's ridiculous. Admittedly any brisket you buy is going to have at least a pound of fat trimmed off, and then the difference on BBQ between raw weight and cooked weight is significant (I think it loses close to 50% of its weight when cooked), so cooked prices should probably come close to doubling. But that's just a psychotic increase for cooked brisket. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 31, 2023, 08:40:21 AM
Is there a brisket up charge?
There is at almost every place I've been or heard about.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 31, 2023, 10:15:45 AM
I wouldn't eat that if you paid me $19.
Ya I dunno something about Tunisia and fresh refrigerated fish doesn't seem to click
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 31, 2023, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah, that one wouldn't appeal to me either.  A good burger to me has balance, much like a fine wine.


https://youtu.be/7PJYGjDeTRM
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 31, 2023, 11:35:57 AM
Not on the classic combo, that is what I usually order, pulled pork and brisket and Brunswick stew and tots.  Or slaw.  If we both get beer, it's going over $50 obviously, my wife likes "sweet tea".
https://youtu.be/hp_pTnQeQiA

wait for the catfish
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 31, 2023, 11:42:24 AM
BBQ is just the best.  From wherever, flavored however, just cook some meat low and slow and give it to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 31, 2023, 02:54:22 PM
Last week I picked up a 13-lb packer brisket , Choice grade, for $1.69/lb.  I'm pretty sure that's the best price I've seen since before the pandemic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 31, 2023, 05:25:16 PM
it's Wednesday, and happy hour

I'm headed to the pub for some brews & wings
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 31, 2023, 05:26:15 PM
it's Wednesday, and happy hour

I'm headed to the pub for some brews & wings
Watch out for Covid.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 31, 2023, 05:27:02 PM
Watch out for Covid.
Fearless stopped getting the vaccination shots years ago, he should be fine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 31, 2023, 06:24:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Zl4vVal.png)

If I passed this place, I would absolutely go in and order coffee whether I wanted some or not.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 31, 2023, 11:28:04 PM
Anecdotal Evidence & a Sample Size of 1
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 01, 2023, 12:06:55 PM
College Football Playoff: Top national championship contenders ahead of 2023 season, ranked (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/tennessee/longformarticle/college-football-playoff-top-national-championship-contenders-ah-210855561/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 01, 2023, 12:14:01 PM
North Carolina road named scariest drive in America – WSOC TV (https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/north-carolina-road-named-scariest-drive-america/7EJFK3SSOBDLXKWCKNKY6ZA6P4/?fbclid=IwAR1GU4xQRxgoSg0yb7VXa7DJQ93A-jb0i31tmUNMBB9WTG2oGAkJHYLPv9Q)

I would strongly disagree with this one, Tail of the Dragon is only a bit scary because of a lot of bikes trying to go too fast.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 01, 2023, 12:19:17 PM
which road has the most fatalities?

I-95
According to NHTSA’s data, I-95 is the most dangerous highway in the United States. In 2019, it had the highest number of overall fatalities (284) and fatalities per 100 miles (14.88).

Many of these accidents occurred in the northeast in the winter, when road conditions were far from ideal. A large portion of accidents also occurred on the east coast of Florida in Jacksonville and Brevard County, which sits outside of Orlando.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/most-dangerous-roads-in-the-us/#:~:text=According%20to%20NHTSA's%20data%2C%20I,highway%20in%20the%20United%20States. (https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/most-dangerous-roads-in-the-us/#:~:text=According to NHTSA's data%2C I,highway in the United States.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on June 01, 2023, 12:48:59 PM
I'm surprised that 70, 80, or 90 didn't win. All of those go through territory that has really poor driving conditions for more time than 95 does.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 01, 2023, 12:51:53 PM
I'm surprised that 70, 80, or 90 didn't win. All of those go through territory that has really poor driving conditions for more time than 95 does.
95 has a ton of New England to FL traffic with the snowbirds. Slow reaction time and all that. 75 isn't great either.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 01, 2023, 12:53:06 PM
I-70 west of Denver is pretty entertaining.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 01, 2023, 02:18:42 PM
I'd guess there's more volume of traffic on 95
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 01, 2023, 06:42:44 PM
I-4 in FL is probably like LA for recruiting - high-up on the per-capita rankings.  Too short to be among the volume leaders.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 02, 2023, 07:27:10 AM
2 Georgia universities make list of top 20 public universities in the U.S. – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/2-georgia-universities-make-list-top-20-public-universities-us/UC7ZTD2MCFCEJH2CWWWST4C6EQ/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2NhBRN0gj_ri8MxFcZWYVXV4mgrT088Whz-gleXcZMvX0mC3XFzt4N13Y)

More rankings...

UGA and GT were at 15 and 16 among publics, Berkley was #1, I doubt these change very much but they do them every year ($$$).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 02, 2023, 07:31:44 AM
I-4 in FL is probably like LA for recruiting - high-up on the per-capita rankings.  Too short to be among the volume leaders.
We do not use I-4. It's nuts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 02, 2023, 07:43:15 AM
I used it last January, it was OK for us.  I had gone to Orlando to work out before baseball for a few days.

I don't much care for Orlando, but some of the kids do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 04, 2023, 08:22:23 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350303755_656753233022142_486333055051858262_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=iZyuJiW7oEsAX_EOOiw&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfD920KNyRlhTi7HX--D8yjn6jwJIkQvVpulXBLQrvIZ1w&oe=6481F6E2)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 04, 2023, 11:22:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/C7T0ptw.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 04, 2023, 11:37:16 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350303755_656753233022142_486333055051858262_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=iZyuJiW7oEsAX_EOOiw&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfD920KNyRlhTi7HX--D8yjn6jwJIkQvVpulXBLQrvIZ1w&oe=6481F6E2)

This doesn't look correct for Texas, currently the LHN is paying about $5M/year to the academic side. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 04, 2023, 11:41:56 AM
UGA sports revenue expenses 2022 and more financials | 11alive.com (https://www.11alive.com/article/sports/college/georgia-bulldogs/uga-athletic-association-2022-financials/85-7dd00595-3d9b-4496-ac51-1fcfa3a9ed38#:~:text=%24203%2C048%2C566 in operating revenue,not included in operating expenses)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 04, 2023, 02:09:58 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350303755_656753233022142_486333055051858262_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=iZyuJiW7oEsAX_EOOiw&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfD920KNyRlhTi7HX--D8yjn6jwJIkQvVpulXBLQrvIZ1w&oe=6481F6E2)
If the top 2 schools in budget are only profitting like $2 million, that tells me this isn't really a goal.  This is a list of schools that simply didn't find anything to spend their money on, like new mats for the gymnastics team or were under the food budget because there were 12 fewer walk-ons overall or something like that.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 04, 2023, 02:17:21 PM
The figures appear to be incorrect, or perhaps refer to some other method of accounting.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 04, 2023, 05:33:25 PM
If the top 2 schools in budget are only profitting like $2 million, that tells me this isn't really a goal.  This is a list of schools that simply didn't find anything to spend their money on, like new mats for the gymnastics team or were under the food budget because there were 12 fewer walk-ons overall or something like that. 
this is not showing profits

read the graph
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 04, 2023, 05:34:09 PM
The figures appear to be incorrect, or perhaps refer to some other method of accounting.
I pulled it from FB so it's got to be correct
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 04, 2023, 07:19:16 PM
This doesn't look correct for Texas, currently the LHN is paying about $5M/year to the academic side.
Can you let him win something against the Horns,sheesh
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 04, 2023, 07:26:48 PM
he has swimming and volleyball
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 04, 2023, 08:38:38 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350855099_811253110047070_8490533083037355287_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xHoXQuWSuuUAX98Ncyf&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfArDb-8PmHJe6iIPc4IJsNR5HqevkavP6HEWHqWvwi6dA&oe=6481DFC7)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 05, 2023, 12:54:52 AM
this is not showing profits

read the graph
Profits they're giving to the central campus budget...same thing.  Money they're willing to part with.  Just a judgement call.  Doesn't change the point.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 05, 2023, 08:04:12 AM
Osborne started the practice at UNL in the late 70s or early 80s
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on June 05, 2023, 08:23:49 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350855099_811253110047070_8490533083037355287_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xHoXQuWSuuUAX98Ncyf&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfArDb-8PmHJe6iIPc4IJsNR5HqevkavP6HEWHqWvwi6dA&oe=6481DFC7)
This list looks a lot like my album collection. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 05, 2023, 08:57:46 AM
How the legendary rock band Rush was discovered by a former Northeastern DJ

https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/06/01/magazine/rush-rock-band-discovery/ (https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/06/01/magazine/rush-rock-band-discovery/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 06, 2023, 02:49:03 PM
Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/Article/Blue-Chip-Ratio-2023-college-football-16-teams-who-can-actually-win-a-national-title-211217111/)

This list might actually mean something, or other.

(https://i.imgur.com/7ELEd9d.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 06, 2023, 09:32:37 PM
we shall see come January
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 07, 2023, 01:08:02 AM
A list like that has become meaningless since the transfer portal.  You'd have to edit it to say "signed and kept..."

A&M's "best class of all-time" isn't much of anything anymore.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 07, 2023, 08:30:16 AM
A list like that has become meaningless since the transfer portal.  You'd have to edit it to say "signed and kept..."

A&M's "best class of all-time" isn't much of anything anymore.
Spot on.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2023, 08:38:13 AM
Literally "meaningless"???  Or perhaps the significance of the list has become lessened due to transfers?

Meaningless to me means "without any meaning or relevance" ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 08:51:11 AM
This list looks a lot like my album collection.
I had 9 of them
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 07, 2023, 08:58:56 AM
Literally "meaningless"???  Or perhaps the significance of the list has become lessened due to transfers?

Meaningless to me means "without any meaning or relevance" ...
Yep, and it describes that list. It no longer matters with the portal.

For example, my school picked up 3 former 4* QB's in the portal this year.

Where they were prior means nothing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 07, 2023, 09:00:40 AM
I had 9 of them
Those are mostly a few years before my time, but I do own two of them, and I have a third on the way on new vinyl as soon as it's done with the remastered pressing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 09:01:39 AM
if the meaning is "who can win the title"

meaningless

if the meaning is "who is recruiting at a high level"
means a lot
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 09:02:43 AM
Those are mostly a few years before my time, but I do own two of them, and I have a third on the way on new vinyl as soon as it's done with the remastered pressing.
they were a bit before my time as well, I was 10 and not buying them as they were released
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 07, 2023, 09:03:15 AM
Yep, and it describes that list. It no longer matters with the portal.

For example, my school picked up 3 former 4* QB's in the portal this year.

Where they were prior means nothing.
I don't think it's completely meaningless but I do think it's lost most of its meaning and I also think y'all are quibbling over trivialities in semantic distinction.  

Which, appears to be the entire point of message board forums so, carry on. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 07, 2023, 09:06:12 AM
I don't think it's completely meaningless but I do think it's lost most of its meaning and I also think y'all are quibbling over trivialities in semantic distinction. 

Which, appears to be the entire point of message board forums so, carry on. :)

Are you saying we are pedantic shitsticks? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2023, 09:21:03 AM
I'd say it has lost some meaning, but a change of 2-3-4 players doesn't change the summation that much in most cases.  It might make the A&M figure really less useful.

The list is probably still a decent one in terms of overall talent on leading teams.  (Another factor is where the talent is positionally of course.  If you happen to have 4 four star tight ends and three 4-5 star QBs, it means less than having the stars more evenly spread through starting players.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 09:24:59 AM
New York Is Shut Out of the James Beard Awards for the First Time in History

The foundation passed over New York chefs and restaurants in every national category

https://ny.eater.com/2023/6/6/23746951/james-beard-awards-nyc-restaurants-2023 (https://ny.eater.com/2023/6/6/23746951/james-beard-awards-nyc-restaurants-2023)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2023, 12:13:47 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8VUM8VP.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 12:49:57 PM
Kids today will never understand how wild the 2007 college football season was

(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/350817920_250621357571311_7710575709318730090_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=j3XuukrPoesAX-TqWEa&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAsrIggJ_rouju7qmJVhERydQ1zwLilqfYTzJzY06LA2w&oe=6485E7FE)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 07, 2023, 01:55:06 PM
[img width=481.991 height=499.988]https://i.imgur.com/8VUM8VP.png[/img]
Tier 5:  Vanderbilt.  Alone.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 02:38:09 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352546447_1422398835246600_1071710724040256045_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8KD-cWMCHN8AX8rAKC-&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDCHCna7Z5G1-RXRR5Tb0uldTmXYKpBWWzsWF66BGzHjw&oe=64851BAC)

I guess they didn't watch Suh vs McCoy?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 07, 2023, 03:34:25 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352546447_1422398835246600_1071710724040256045_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8KD-cWMCHN8AX8rAKC-&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDCHCna7Z5G1-RXRR5Tb0uldTmXYKpBWWzsWF66BGzHjw&oe=64851BAC)

I guess they didn't watch Suh vs McCoy?

I guess they did. McCoy ended up 1 point ahead of Suh, both times.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
I like the ranking

Touchdown Tommie Frazer - Greatest college QB of all-time!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 07:15:53 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/IaDzZRK.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 07:17:19 AM
More amazing than how many things folks like to rank is how unnerved some folks get over such rankings.  They take great umbrage that "their guy" isn't higher.  And "argue" (cuss) about it no end.  You humans are weird.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2023, 07:47:46 AM
so, Bama has nuttin at QB???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 07:58:08 AM
They got that guy from ND, and two others.  Nobody seems to know how decent they could be.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 08:22:01 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/KeFxNL7.png)

SEC players only, would be fun for a TE to win it, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2023, 08:28:13 AM
so, LSU should have a good season

if Jayden stays healthy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 08, 2023, 11:46:09 AM
Top 50 burger spots in the United States (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/top-50-burger-spots-in-the-united-states/ss-AA1ciAUm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7d8bd1241ee642468c6af4a65225ef21&ei=4)

Back on topic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2023, 11:57:59 AM
Top 50 burger spots in the United States (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/top-50-burger-spots-in-the-united-states/ss-AA1ciAUm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7d8bd1241ee642468c6af4a65225ef21&ei=4)

Back on topic.
Only ones I've been to:


Anyone been to Shake Shack or Hopdoddy? I have both local but have never been. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2023, 12:01:58 PM
nope

but the Zombie Burger in Des Moines is good

Stella's in Omaha should be on the list
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on June 08, 2023, 12:08:17 PM
World Street Kitchen isn't even the best burger in South Minneapolis. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 08, 2023, 12:29:32 PM
Only ones I've been to:

  • Five Guys
  • Deschutes Brewery Portland Public House
  • The Counter Burger

Anyone been to Shake Shack or Hopdoddy? I have both local but have never been.


Shake Shack is just a fast casual chain sorta like Five Guys.  The burgers at both are fine, but nothing I'd put in a Top 50 list.  I can name 10-20 burgers in Austin alone that are better than either one of them.

Hopdoddy is an upscale/gourmet burger restaurant that started in Austin maybe 15 years ago?  It's really quite good.  Local draft beer and unique, high-quality burgers are their brand.  They've got a poblano burger and a mushroom/chevre burger that I really like.  Honestly I've liked everything I've ever had there.  Lots of folks think it's overly pricey, though.

I didn't sample a lot of burgers in Minneapolis because after I found Matt's Bar I didn't need to.  I'd definitely put that Jucy Lucy up against the best from anywhere else.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 08, 2023, 12:32:31 PM
Kuma's Corner sucks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 12:41:28 PM
Shake Shack is OK, there is one a block from us.  I prefer Farm Burger and Killer Burger and a place called Vortex.  Vortex is sort of known for burgers around here.

The Vortex Bar & Grill - Best Burgers in Atlanta (thevortexatl.com) (https://thevortexatl.com/)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2023, 12:57:50 PM
I've been to the Vortex down at Little 5 Points once... A meeting of libertarian bloggers, back when I was into that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2023, 01:04:12 PM
We were supposed to have a Procrastinators Meeting there today, but it got put off.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 08, 2023, 01:32:37 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ApAdUNN.jpg)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 08, 2023, 06:11:18 PM
[img width=396.991 height=499.988]https://i.imgur.com/KeFxNL7.png[/img]

SEC players only, would be fun for a TE to win it, but I doubt it.

I agree.

I think we had a near-miss n 2020 with Kyle Pitts.  He had a great season, but only played 8 games.  He was the first TE to finish in the top 10 in Heisman voting in 40 years.  12 TDs in 8 games, zero drops for the season, and a big game vs Bama helped.

His numbers if he played 12 games:  65 rec, 1150 yds, 18 TDs.  
Uncoverable.  
Bowers can be that good, too.  
.
I was looking at the Mackey Award winners and was amazed at the lack of TD stats.  The 2021 winner only caught 1 TD all year.  We envision these 6'6" dudes running corner routes or fades or whatever, but only 2 out of 20 winners scored as many as 10 TDs.  That's why Pitts' 12 TDs in 8 games was so amazing.
But Bowers could have a monster season like that.  A new QB's best friend is a good TE.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 08, 2023, 06:24:13 PM
Only ones I've been to:

  • Five Guys
  • Deschutes Brewery Portland Public House
  • The Counter Burger

Anyone been to Shake Shack or Hopdoddy? I have both local but have never been.

Shake Shack is perfectly fine and too expensive. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 08, 2023, 06:51:17 PM
Shake Shack is kind of weird to me, I really don't get their branding/positioning.  The buildings themselves are modern and sort of upscale, but the food is much more fast food or fast casual.  They're overly pricey for the category their food puts them in, it's like they're trying to compete with boutique/upscale joints but the food experience is closer to an ordinary fast food burger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 08, 2023, 06:57:34 PM
Shake Shack is perfectly fine and too expensive.
This.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2023, 07:01:03 PM
I'll stay away
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2023, 07:18:37 PM
Shake Shack is kind of weird to me, I really don't get their branding/positioning.  The buildings themselves are modern and sort of upscale, but the food is much more fast food or fast casual.  They're overly pricey for the category their food puts them in, it's like they're trying to compete with boutique/upscale joints but the food experience is closer to an ordinary fast food burger.
Hmm... Interesting. 

I always rail against the people who argue "In n Out vs Five Guys" because they're different classes. In n Out should be compared to McD's, BK, Wendy's, etc but it outclasses them so horribly that it gets compared with a completely different category in Five Guys. 

Would you consider Shake Shack to be in the Five Guys realm? Smashburger / Steak and Shake? In n Out? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 08, 2023, 07:40:45 PM
I've never been to Smashburger so can't comment.

Shake Shack is more like a Five Guys than a McDonald's so that's where they should be competing, but the exterior and interior design plus pricing would put them up another level beyond that, but the food itself doesn't justify it.  It's a Five Guys burger in a more upscale/trendier-looking setting, which is why I just don't really get their branding/ID.

All that said, I just looked up their price for a basic burger and they're actually less than Five Guys by several dollars.  A Five Guys burger is now $10.29, apparently?  Wow.  Sounds like I should be calling out Five Guys instead.

I haven't been to either in years because there are just too many great options that are either less expensive for similar food, or a much better food experience for more money.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 08, 2023, 07:43:35 PM
Oh and I agree In n Out should be considered in the straight bottom-rung fast food category alongside McDonald's and Wendy's and BK, and it's superior to all of those.  I don't love it the way the InO Cultists worship it, but it's definitely better than most of its mainstream competitors.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2023, 07:58:39 PM
Shake Shack is more like a Five Guys than a McDonald's so that's where they should be competing, but the exterior and interior design plus pricing would put them up another level beyond that, but the food itself doesn't justify it.  It's a Five Guys burger in a more upscale/trendier-looking setting, which is why I just don't really get their branding/ID.

All that said, I just looked up their price for a basic burger and they're actually less than Five Guys by several dollars.  A Five Guys burger is now $10.29, apparently?  Wow.  Sounds like I should be calling out Five Guys instead.
Got it. That's good context. 

Oh and I agree In n Out should be considered in the straight bottom-rung fast food category alongside McDonald's and Wendy's and BK, and it's superior to all of those.  I don't love it the way the InO Cultists worship it, but it's definitely better than most of its mainstream competitors.
Yeah, a long time ago in some thread here I posted my treatise on In n Out. The cultists who make it out to be the best burger ever are misguided. And those who compare it to something like Five Guys are misgueded. 

In n Out is IMHO the best "fast food" burger on the market. But it's a fast food burger. It's priced as a fast food burger. It's sized as a fast food burger. If you hear the In n Out cultists and are expecting a life-changing experience, you're gonna be disappointed. 

That said, as a Texan, I'm going to ask you... In n Out vs Whataburger? I've only had the latter once, and barely remember it. What's your opinion, and why? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 08, 2023, 09:33:39 PM
I guess In-n-Out is the tallest midget, but does that negate that it has the worst fries in the history of mankind?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2023, 09:37:17 PM
I guess In-n-Out is the tallest midget, but does that negate that it has the worst fries in the history of mankind? 
Yeah, the fries are terrible. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2023, 11:00:59 PM
I don't eat fast food

in & out and Whataburger are in that category

I will try a Five Guys if that's what my buddy wants but mot my preference

The five guys here went under.

I didn't do much to support them, but I stopped once in a while
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 07:47:55 AM
I actually like Whoppers, but like many here, I rarely eat fast food.  We stop when driving somewhere is about it.  My wife doesn't like Cracker Barrel or Waffle House or IHOP but curiously likes McDs, I think mostly because they have them in France.  We will go there for breakfast, I'm not a fan otherwise.  I used to stop at BK some nights when returning from the wine bar because of grease.

I don't know how widely spread Farm Burger is, they have a few around here, same with Killer Burger.  Both serve beer which sort of makes them not fast food.  Farm Burger has a deal for $10 a pretty good burger and a beer (Narragansette).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 07:57:04 AM
In&O is dead to me unless they open here.

Portillo's has the best chain burger and it's not close. It won't be long before they are nation-wide.

(https://i.imgur.com/WP91ff0.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 08:27:39 AM

That said, as a Texan, I'm going to ask you... In n Out vs Whataburger? I've only had the latter once, and barely remember it. What's your opinion, and why?

Oh I definitely prefer Whataburger but this is an unfair competition for InO because the Whataburger menu is just so much larger, with so many more options.  They're really not competing in the same category.

On my Whataburger, I can get the usual lettuce and tomato plus bacon, raw or grilled onions, raw, grilled, or pickled jalapenos, New Mexican green chile, avocado, and any number of condiments including mustard, mayo, ketchup, spicy ketchup, BBQ sauce, sweet-hot-sauce.  You can get that on a standard bun, a brioche bun, or Texas toast.  If you like cheese you can add slices of American cheese, slices of Monterrey jack cheese, or shredded cheddar cheese.  Or any combination of the three.

And if you don't want a burger you can get a plain chicken sandwich, a fried chicken sandwich, a chicken strip sandwich, all dressed with any of the options above.

During Lent you can get a fried fish sandwich.

And if you don't want sandwiches you can get just straight up chicken strips.

And if you want breakfast you can get that too, from 11 PM to 11 AM (they're open 24 hours).  You can get pancakes, eggs, bacon, sausage patties, hash brown sticks, taquitos, biscuits and gravy, biscuit sandwiches with eggs and sausage patties or eggs and bacon, with either a standard biscuit of a jalapeno cheddar biscuit. 

And because they short-order everything, you can get any combination of any of the above.  For example, if you're there after 11 PM, you can get a jalapeno cheeseburger topped with eggs, bacon, hash brown sticks, and a sausage patty.  I'm not saying you should do this, I'm not saying it's wise, but it can be done, and it has been done.

All that aside, just comparing the burgers themselves, my go-to order at Whataburger (at least when I was younger and had some semblance of a metabolism) is the double bacon cheeseburger with one slice of American cheese, one slice of Monterrey jack cheese, grilled onions, grilled jalapenos, and mustard.

And that beats anything and everything InO can do.  I don't like Thousand Island dressing so I don't like anything "animal style" and last time I was there InO only has what they call "sport peppers" which I think are okay on a sub but absolutely do not want them on my burger.

The fries aren't great at either place, I guess Whateburger's hold out a little longer though.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 08:33:34 AM
I'll add that InO churns out the food, it's typically hot and fresh, and the name is apt.

Whataburger, on the other hand, is the slowest "fast food" on the planet.  It is known.

However, the phone app combined with curbside pickup, have really changed things.  I can order on the app and know that whatever their time estimate is, add 10-15 minutes, and that's when I show up. Then I can just hit the curbside spots and completely avoid the drive-thru line.  It's a game-changer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 08:49:05 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/XlGiW4H.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 09, 2023, 08:55:54 AM
I don't know how widely spread Farm Burger is, they have a few around here, same with Killer Burger.  Both serve beer which sort of makes them not fast food.  Farm Burger has a deal for $10 a pretty good burger and a beer (Narragansette).

getting a beer with your burger is a game changer
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 09:07:14 AM
getting a beer with your burger is a game changer
Definitely.  If I'm actually going specifically to get a burger and I'm not just trying to get something fast for the kids to squeeze in between football practice, a band concert, or a soccer game, then I'm going to one of the local joints that serves good beer alongside a good burger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 09:10:17 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7xxZ9Pr.png)

That is one of the Farm Burger options my wife likes.  It appears there are just in Georgia.  Burger and a beer for $10 is a deal even if the beer is mediocre.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 09:19:06 AM
^^^

What the heck is THAT?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 09:21:49 AM
100% grassfed, grass-finished beef with pasture-raised bacon, sunny side up egg, pepper jack cheese, salsa verde

Menu | Farm Burger (https://farmburger.com/menu/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 09:28:43 AM
I don't see any beef on that thing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 09:33:15 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/43bo1tc.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 09, 2023, 09:37:43 AM
100% grassfed, grass-finished beef with pasture-raised bacon, sunny side up egg, pepper jack cheese, salsa verde

Menu | Farm Burger (https://farmburger.com/menu/)
if ya git that and a beer for $10, I suppose the fries are $8
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 09:38:55 AM
It's there.  I usually get the same burger with just tomato lettuce and onion and their special sauce.  They also have jalapenoes as an option, but theirs are quite hot I found.

Top Burger Restaurants - Atlanta Parent (https://www.atlantaparent.com/eating_out_the_burger_bunch/)

Rest | Sfbg (semperfibarandgrille.com) (https://www.semperfibarandgrille.com/)

Memorabilia | Semper Fi Bar & Grille - Woodstock, Georgia (semperfibarandgrille.com) (https://www.semperfibarandgrille.com/memorabilia)

This place is neat because it's like a museum as well as restaurant.  It's a drive for us, 35 miles or so.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 09:40:33 AM
if ya git that and a beer for $10, I suppose the fries are $8
They have good fries, I think.  They aren't too pricey, $3.  And they serve collards as well.  We go here every couple weeks or so, the manager is a nice lady.


fb_wf-8.5x14_tendollar10-1-9.pdf (farmburger.com) (https://farmburger.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/fb_wf-8.5x14_tendollar10-1-9.pdf)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 09:56:55 AM
The hardest college to get into in every state (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/the-hardest-college-to-get-into-in-every-state/ss-AA1cisX4?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6a7f817a469f4404ba7c8c7263445e9c&ei=46#interstitial=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 10:19:45 AM
In&O is dead to me unless they open here.

Portillo's has the best chain burger and it's not close. It won't be long before they are nation-wide.

(https://i.imgur.com/WP91ff0.png)
I had no clue Portillo's had expanded that widely. I was obviously elated when they opened their first location outside the Chicago metro and it was in Buena Park, CA... 

I need to find an excuse to head up there soon. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 10:27:26 AM
I've never heard of Portillo's but would certainly give it a try if it ever came to Austin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 09, 2023, 10:37:15 AM
I can't keep track of all the places you can go to. IMO, the best fast food burgers are freshly griddled, with a slice of cheese. A good pickle is the best topping. Griddled onions also acceptable. A good sauce is a nice option but not mandatory if the cheese is melty enough. The bun should be griddled, hopefully in butter. Missing any of these components and your burger is second rate at best.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 10:42:48 AM
I've never heard of Portillo's but would certainly give it a try if it ever came to Austin.
There are some things that are very Chicago-specific to look for, if you have places local that specialize in Chicago foods. 

I can't vouch for this place but it looks to be close to you: http://www.wiseguyschicago.com/menu1.html

The options to try would be:


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 09, 2023, 10:55:32 AM
BTW did anyone watch The Bear? Speaking of Chicago sandwiches. Season 2 coming out soon I think.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 10:59:11 AM
BTW did anyone watch The Bear? Speaking of Chicago sandwiches. Season 2 coming out soon I think.
Yeah, good show! Looking forward to Season 2. 

For those who haven't watched it, for some reason Hulu used the word "comedy", and it is absolutely NOT a comedy. There is some darkly funny stuff, but it's a drama. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 10:59:49 AM
There are some things that are very Chicago-specific to look for, if you have places local that specialize in Chicago foods.

I can't vouch for this place but it looks to be close to you: http://www.wiseguyschicago.com/menu1.html

The options to try would be:

  • Italian Beef sandwich (preferable to order "wet" w/ hot giardinera instead of sweet peppers, cheese or no cheese per your preference)
  • Maxwell Street Polish
  • Chicago Dog
  • Italian Sausage sandwich, or even the combo beef & sausage


Yeah we've had some Chicago-specific eateries in the past, although they haven't seemed to make it for long. 

I've had Italian Beef for sure, and I do like it.  

If I order a Chicago Dog sans relish, pickle spear, and sport peppers, is it still a Chicago Dog?  Because I loathe pickles and consider sport peppers to be pretty much a waste of time.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 11:07:52 AM
I've never heard of Portillo's but would certainly give it a try if it ever came to Austin.
There was one across the street from where we stayed in Orlando, so we tried it, it was OK.  Didn't go back though.

Hot dogs in a restaurant are incredibly expensive today.  The below is like $9 and isn't anything special at all.


(https://i.imgur.com/n4PMbAQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 11:15:52 AM
If I order a Chicago Dog sans relish, pickle spear, and sport peppers, is it still a Chicago Dog?  Because I loathe pickles and consider sport peppers to be pretty much a waste of time.
It's a quasi-Chicago Dog then I guess. 

However, if it touches ketchup, then it is disqualified completely. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 09, 2023, 11:21:56 AM
Portillo's:  2 beefy cheddars (on croissant) w/ fries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 11:29:32 AM
Portillo's:  2 beefy cheddars (on croissant) w/ cheese fries

FTFY. 

That cheese sauce is like crack. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 11:30:56 AM
I was thinking of the crack comment yesterday when we had lunch at Mukja (Korean Fried Chicken).  Their chicken is awesome.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 11:49:47 AM
Yeah we've had some Chicago-specific eateries in the past, although they haven't seemed to make it for long.

I've had Italian Beef for sure, and I do like it. 

If I order a Chicago Dog sans relish, pickle spear, and sport peppers, is it still a Chicago Dog?  Because I loathe pickles and consider sport peppers to be pretty much a waste of time.

No.

A Chicago dog must have all of the ingredients to be so.

A Depression dog has mustard, relish, onions and sport peppers.

A Maxwell Street Polish has Polish Sausage, grilled onions and mustard.

And don't ever mention ketchup. You will lose a kidney.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 02:30:10 PM
No.

A Chicago dog must have all of the ingredients to be so.

A Depression dog has mustard, relish, onions and sport peppers.

A Maxwell Street Polish has Polish Sausage, grilled onions and mustard.

And don't ever mention ketchup. You will lose a kidney.

Yeah I do mustard on hot dogs, never ketchup.

But pickles and relish are disgusting, and sport peppers are a waste of time, so I'll pass on the Chicago dog and the depression dog.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 09, 2023, 02:50:07 PM
I like dill relish, but it's scarce.  I have no clue how people enjoy sweet pickles/relish.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 09, 2023, 02:53:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyMtfPJWIAYwAWq?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 09, 2023, 02:54:32 PM
We found a condiment from the company Grillo's called "Pickle de Gallo", a pickle-based salsa. Haven't tried it yet. Trying to figure out what to put it on...

They also have good dill pickle spears available from Costco, at least around here. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 03:04:59 PM
I love pico de gallo.

Pickle de gallo sounds like packaged vomit.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 09, 2023, 03:08:24 PM
[img width=499.977 height=499.977]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyMtfPJWIAYwAWq?format=jpg&name=small[/img]
Texas Tech?

The only time they've mattered in the past 40 years took peak Mike Leach, and that was for 1 season.  They're in bumfuck nowhere, get 5th pickings from TX recruits (after Texas, OU, A&M, and TCU at least).   I have no idea what TTU has going for it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 09, 2023, 03:15:25 PM
Texas Tech?

The only time they've mattered in the past 40 years took peak Mike Leach, and that was for 1 season.  They're in bumfuck nowhere, get 5th pickings from TX recruits (after Texas, OU, A&M, and TCU at least).  I have no idea what TTU has going for it.
Yeah Tech isn't a sleeping giant.  Maybe a sleeping prairie dog?

But they always try to be edgy with these picks.  You couldn't say TCU or Baylor or OkState or Kansas State, because all of those teams have played for the B12 championship recently.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 09, 2023, 03:47:24 PM
Clearly Texas would be the "Nebraska" of the Big 12. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 04:24:18 PM
I like dill relish, but it's scarce.  I have no clue how people enjoy sweet pickles/relish. 
Vienna Beef Hot Dog Kit & 2 Lou's Pizzas | Tastes of Chicago


 (https://www.tastesofchicago.com/product/vienna-beef-hot-dog-kit-2-lous-pizzas/)There you have it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2023, 04:26:59 PM
Miami has been a sleeping giant since it left the Big East.

Colorado has been a sleeping giant since it found dope.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2023, 05:11:58 PM
South Carolina won't be a giant any time soon, but I think they will be pretty good in 2023, like 9-3 or 8-4.  Ish.

I think of a "giant" in CFB as a program that consistently wins ten games. plus.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 09, 2023, 11:45:43 PM
South Carolina won't be a giant any time soon, but I think they will be pretty good in 2023, like 9-3 or 8-4.  Ish.

I think of a "giant" in CFB as a program that consistently wins ten games. plus.
Yeah, Carolina's peak was an East title in a very down year for the division and they have yet to lose fewer than 2 conf games in any season.  
If they couldn't do it with Spurrier in a down year for the conference, forget it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 10, 2023, 01:03:13 AM
Yeah, Carolina's peak was an East title in a very down year for the division and they have yet to lose fewer than 2 conf games in any season. 
If they couldn't do it with Spurrier in a down year for the conference, forget it.
That year was their peak? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 10, 2023, 03:32:51 AM
That year was their peak?
Well that year they at least WON something.  The ensuing 11-2 trio of seasons didn't yield anything of substance.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 10, 2023, 10:24:24 AM
Well that year they at least WON something.  The ensuing 11-2 trio of seasons didn't yield anything of substance. 
Yeah, that was a weird one. Because that 2010 team was no doubt the worst of the four. But, as you pointed out, that was a bad SEC East, which allowed a 9-3 team (5-3 in conference) to win it. That team beat No. 1 Bama and then lost to UK. 

The next three we odd and somehow very Spurrier-y in the sense that SC went 6-2 in conference three times, had the tiebreaker with the SEC East champ three times and didn't win it.

The 2011 team tripped up against a mid-Auburn team ahead of a needed QB switch. Then their permanent opponent was a top-5 team and that was that. 

The 2012 team whipped UGA, but lost a tight one at Death Valley in their rotating cross division game (bad break there), then got the wrong end of one of those gross Muschamp games with that one good Muschamp team. (Florida scored 44 points on 2.8 yards per play, owing to like three SC fumbles when backed up)

The 2013 team finally lost to UGA, but was still in line for Atlanta until it Spurrier-style biffed it late to a not-good UT team. 

Now I suppose if they had won the division any of those years, they only likely would've been competitive in the last SEC title game. And then we'd be hearing that they beat up on a weak SEC East anyway. In some ways, by definition if none of UT/UGA/UF are able to win the division, the SEC East can't be that strong. 

And the sleeping giant thing is, of course, silly. UF and UGA were the sleeping giants that already got woken up. SC is a good football state, but small, and has Clemson as a top choice for a lot of talent going back decades. It's unlikely to outspend UT/UGA/UF over a long term, and unlikely to pull choice kids in neighboring Georgia. So it's gotta win some battles in over-recruited NC, pick off second-tier Ga and Florida kids and hope things alight. This a sleeping giant does not make. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 11:29:53 AM
My sleeping programs have been North Carolina, Washington, and Illinois.  I've thought they all could get to 9 wins on average with the right coach and some aid from management.  UW has a decent program as it is.  UNC has an "OK" program.  

Colorado will be interesting of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 11:41:40 AM
College football rankings: Top 25 winningest programs of last 10 years (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/College-football-rankings-Top-25-winningest-programs-of-last-10-years-211370098/?fbclid=IwAR0K0oU-hszwiU5FLomYxf0A2UasfoPkpUqLBvabrTlp2eSEyNTJklgw91s)

This one is at least ranked using data.  Bama is first at 90% which is hard to believe really, Ohio State is at 88.5%.  

If you have one season at 10-3 you're not likely to see 90% over a decade without 9 more with one loss (almost).  I figure 130 games in 10 years, so only 12 losses.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 11:52:57 AM
My favorite is Gene and Jude's. See ya soon!!

5 Best Hot Dogs In Chicago, According to Chefs (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/5-best-hot-dogs-in-chicago-according-to-chefs/ss-AA1ckQEv?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1e3645bad0d948b795835121f509c47d&ei=10#image=6)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 12:01:43 PM
How often do y'all fix dogs at home?  What do you buy and how do you heat'em?

My wife doesn't like'em so for me it's rare.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 12:12:32 PM
I can't find Vienna beef in stores down here so hot dogs are rare. I was thinking about having a case shipped.

There are a few outposts that serve Chicago food. So far, I've enjoyed those. 

I like tavern-style pizza (a Chicago thing) as opposed to the deep dish and I've had some good tavern-style here. It's cracker thin crust but cut into squares rather than triangles.

This place is good.

Chicago Pizza (thechicagopizza.com) (https://www.thechicagopizza.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 12:53:57 PM
My sleeping programs have been North Carolina, Washington, and Illinois.  I've thought they all could get to 9 wins on average with the right coach and some aid from management.  UW has a decent program as it is.  UNC has an "OK" program. 

Colorado will be interesting of course.
I'm not sure I buy it for Illinois. I suppose the argument is all the Chicago-area talent. But I'm not sure that talent identifies as living in "Illinois" as much as living in "Chicago". 

I just don't necessarily buy that the in-state flagship will necessarily have any discernable "in-state" recruiting advantage over M, OSU, or ND if those programs come calling. 

Which would of course mean that they may have a ceiling below "giant" level. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 12:58:33 PM
I don't expect Illinois to get there, merely to think that they "could" under the right conditions.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 01:05:52 PM
How often do y'all fix dogs at home?  What do you buy and how do you heat'em?

My wife doesn't like'em so for me it's rare.
Not often. Occasionally we'll do "junk food night" with the kids and make chili dogs. Every once in a while we do "Chicago dogs" but not really since as Badge points out we're not sourcing Vienna Beef brand. 

My wife only buys Hebrew National. 

I'm more likely to prefer some good German sausage from our good butcher shop, simmered in onion/sauerkraut/beer, and then served with grainy mustard, sauerkraut, on a nice roll, if I'm looking for a tube of encased meat on a bun. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 01:06:25 PM
I'm not sure I buy it for Illinois. I suppose the argument is all the Chicago-area talent. But I'm not sure that talent identifies as living in "Illinois" as much as living in "Chicago".

I just don't necessarily buy that the in-state flagship will necessarily have any discernable "in-state" recruiting advantage over M, OSU, or ND if those programs come calling.

Which would of course mean that they may have a ceiling below "giant" level.
Illinois is trying to be Wisconsin. 6 out of 11 of their coaches played (4) or coached (2) in Madison. Plus, more on the support staff.

Wisconsin is trying to get higher than it has been, hence the Luke Fickell hire.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 01:08:38 PM
I don't expect Illinois to get there, merely to think that they "could" under the right conditions.
Understood. I didn't think you were predicting they would do it. 

I'm just asking if the rationale is due to the Chicago-area talent being in Illinois, so you think that's a recruiting advantage for the Illini? 

I'm saying if that is the rationale, I think it misses some unique aspects of the mindset in Illinois, where it's unlikely that any of that talent grows up rooting for the Illini or having any reliable affinity for the team just because they're in the same state. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 01:40:14 PM
I never got the sense that Chicago kids grew up dreaming of playing at Illinois. It's like two different states.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
I never got the sense that Chicago kids grew up dreaming of playing at Illinois. It's like two different states.
Yep. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Chicago "power" HS football programs are largely private Catholic schools that can recruit, if there isn't a lot of ND propaganda going on.

That said, I grew up out in Wheaton and the Wheaton/Naperville schools were some of the top public school football programs. I'd think those areas are probably a more reliable pipeline to Champaign. But I still don't know that it would outweigh M or OSU if either of those programs came calling. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 01:56:07 PM
My rationale really is that UI is the "flagship" in a populous state that must surely have some decent HS football around somewhere.  Today it seems to be a complete afterthought even for 3 star folks.  Find yourself an athletic QB who is slated to play safety at Ohio State and put him behind center and adapt your offense to suit.

Blitz on every down from weird angles.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 01:58:53 PM
UW also takes a lot of Illinois kids. For many, it's even a closer drive. getting to I-57 is a pain if you are in NW Crook, Lake, Kane, McHenry or DuPage Counties.

Already 2 for 2024 with likely 2-3 more. 2 in 2023.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 01:59:54 PM
My rationale really is that UI is the "flagship" in a populous state that must surely have some decent HS football around somewhere.  Today it seems to be a complete afterthought even for 3 star folks.  Find yourself an athletic QB who is slated to play safety at Ohio State and put him behind center and adapt your offense to suit.

Blitz on every down from weird angles.


Bielema is not gonna do that. He's playing BarryBall with a Hayden Fry influence.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 10, 2023, 02:01:42 PM
My sleeping programs have been North Carolina, Washington, and Illinois.  I've thought they all could get to 9 wins on average with the right coach and some aid from management.  UW has a decent program as it is.  UNC has an "OK" program. 

Colorado will be interesting of course.
I feel like the quality of Illinois talent isn’t THAT deep? It’s fine, but not super deep. And it’s touched on by a ton of programs. It’s like of Georgia had a 10th the talent and UGA had a 15th the brand value. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 02:18:34 PM
I feel like the quality of Illinois talent isn’t THAT deep? It’s fine, but not super deep. And it’s touched on by a ton of programs. It’s like of Georgia had a 10th the talent and UGA had a 15th the brand value.
Correct. There is some really high quality at the top, and then a drop. Here is a list of 4* and 5* players. After that it's all 3* or less.


(https://i.imgur.com/DPvzX2d.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 02:18:41 PM
That could well be, and you have so many other B1G programs close by spreading the wealth as it were also.

Washington doesn't face that as much.  North Carolina does some, but that state produces more talent.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 02:20:30 PM
Spring football just wrapped up in SW FL. There is no spring ball up North. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 02:51:31 PM
I guess when a 4 star OT from Illinois commits down south, it's a sign.  

(I just looked, only 5 of UGA's 2024 17 commits are from the state.  Aside from AL and FL, I see AZ CA NY Iowa! MO CT! and NY!!!).  That never would have happened 20 years ago.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 03:16:41 PM
NIL changes things.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 03:21:51 PM
Look at Wisconsin. This does not happen 5 years ago. Granted, of the ones lost, only Sexton had a Wisconsin offer, and it came too late. The old staff offered all of these kids, but the new staff pulled them. 

Roy's brother plays at UCLA, and he did not grow up in Wisconsin. He still has his offer, but I doubt he's a Badger.

(https://i.imgur.com/D4lfBs4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 03:35:39 PM
My rationale really is that UI is the "flagship" in a populous state that must surely have some decent HS football around somewhere.  
Yeah... But I think people from Atlanta identify as Georgians. People from Cincinnati identify as Ohioans. 

People from Chicago don't identify with Illinois. They identify as Chicagoans. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 10, 2023, 03:38:28 PM
Yeah... But I think people from Atlanta identify as Georgians. People from Cincinnati identify as Ohioans.

People from Chicago don't identify with Illinois. They identify as Chicagoans.


This.

People ask where I'm from and I don't say Illinois. I say Chicago, and they might ask which part. Sox fan or Kubbs? 

I'm sure you're the same way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 03:40:28 PM
This.

People ask where I'm from and I don't say Illinois. I say Chicago, and they might ask which part. Sox fan or Kubbs?

I'm sure you're the same way.
100%. Always respond with "I'm from Chicago." I don't even say "the Midwest". 

I used to say that Chicago wasn't really Midwestern; it's just located there. But then I met people from SF & LA, and yeah, Chicago is definitely a BIT Midwestern lol...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 10, 2023, 04:18:15 PM
My rationale really is that UI is the "flagship" in a populous state that must surely have some decent HS football around somewhere.  Today it seems to be a complete afterthought even for 3 star folks.  Find yourself an athletic QB who is slated to play safety at Ohio State and put him behind center and adapt your offense to suit.

Blitz on every down from weird angles.


Juice Williams?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 10, 2023, 04:19:26 PM
Is this a legit place or just making shit up and tricking Phoenix people?
(https://i.imgur.com/BwDACb8.jpg)

It's right by my friend's house.  Looks like it's a sliders place, not a full-sized burger joint.  I always mean to try it, just haven't yet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 10, 2023, 04:26:15 PM
Some Atlantans are ashamed of the state (Tech fans mostly)…
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 10, 2023, 05:38:33 PM
Is this a legit place or just making shit up and tricking Phoenix people?
[img width=260.182 height=432]https://i.imgur.com/BwDACb8.jpg[/img]

It's right by my friend's house.  Looks like it's a sliders place, not a full-sized burger joint.  I always mean to try it, just haven't yet.

Obviously I haven't tried it, but the Vienna hot dog and Italian beef sandwich at least have the right description on the menu. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2023, 08:46:27 AM
Obviously I haven't tried it, but the Vienna hot dog and Italian beef sandwich at least have the right description on the menu. 
I'd eat there based on that menu.

And this is part of the menu. Merktz on a burger is a Chicago thing. I've seen it in Wisconsin too.


(https://i.imgur.com/lPegpFk.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 13, 2023, 08:05:51 AM
10 Best Costco Wines, According to Sommeliers

https://www.eatthis.com/costco-best-wines/ (https://www.eatthis.com/costco-best-wines/)

1. Kirkland Signature Series Premier Cru Chablis
2. Kirkland Signature Malbec - I'd like a case!
3. My Favorite Neighbor Cabernet Sauvignon
4. Kirkland Signature Brut Champagne
5. Saldo Zinfandel
6. Guigal Côtes-du-Rhône Red - perfect for Husker game day
7. Stag's Leap Wine Cellars Aveta Sauvignon Blanc
8. Kirkland Signature Oakville Cabernet Sauvignon
9. Kirkland Signature Pinot Grigio
9. Dom Pérignon Brut Champagne
If you think Costco only has cheap wines, think again. On the shelves you'll find arguably the most famous name in all of Champagne–Dom Pérignon Brut Champagne. This iconic, prestigious, and pricey bottle is best saved for your most special nights and most memorable toasts. Featuring tropical fruits, green apple and pear, Fand says he always picks up his Dom at Costco because it has the best price, at around $150.

Cincy's fav didn't make the ranking??

(https://i.imgur.com/ulGLGcg.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 13, 2023, 08:12:26 AM
My own rarings:

1. Kirkland Signature Series Premier Cru Chablis - Good for the money, but not as good as the best of course
2. Kirkland Signature Malbec - Decent, but not my favorite malbec
3. My Favorite Neighbor Cabernet Sauvignon ???
4. Kirkland Signature Brut Champagne - OK, but not as good as other Champagnes that cost $30-40, so not fair, I'd rather have something from US
5. Saldo Zinfandel ???
6. Guigal Côtes-du-Rhône Red - quite decent for that price
7. Stag's Leap Wine Cellars Aveta Sauvignon Blanc ???
8. Kirkland Signature Oakville Cabernet Sauvignon - superb, I bought 6 I think and went back for more, they were out
9. Kirkland Signature Pinot Grigio - very bland, cheap at $5, but bland, I'd use it for parties, not to drink
9. Dom Pérignon Brut Champagne - Not sure why this is here, I can get it at the same price other places.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 13, 2023, 11:15:12 AM
10 non-conference matchups the Georgia Bulldogs should schedule next (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/10-non-conference-matchups-the-georgia-bulldogs-should-schedule--211520607/#2182934)

Another useless list, but Wisconsin is #3, which would be good.  USC is #1, Penn State is #4, Michigan is #2.  They have Washington in the mix which I'd like also.  I'd throw in Virginia H&H, maybe Iowa?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 13, 2023, 05:52:59 PM
Not so much a ranking as an ordered list, but here ya go:

https://www.astronomy.com/observing/20-of-the-best-places-to-view-the-2024-great-north-american-eclipse/

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 14, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
SEC football rankings: Top 25 players for 2023 season highlighted by Alabama, Georgia standouts (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/sec-football-rankings-top-25-players-for-2023-season-highlighted-211456482/#2181775)

Click bait, I clicked, obviously some of these folks will bust or get injured etc., and someone else will shine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 14, 2023, 10:48:17 AM
10 non-conference matchups the Georgia Bulldogs should schedule next (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/10-non-conference-matchups-the-georgia-bulldogs-should-schedule--211520607/#2182934)

Another useless list, but Wisconsin is #3, which would be good.  USC is #1, Penn State is #4, Michigan is #2.  They have Washington in the mix which I'd like also.  I'd throw in Virginia H&H, maybe Iowa?
so, what all good fans want..........

SEC vs B1G matchups!!!

yes, sir
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 14, 2023, 10:50:10 AM
I think we all enjoy SEC-B1G regular season matchups.  They clearly are the two best conferences, and getting stronger fast.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 14, 2023, 10:51:23 AM
so, what all good fans want..........

SEC vs B1G matchups!!!

yes, sir

Yup.  Texas will be playing SEC vs. B1G matchups from 2024 through 2027

2024: @Michigan
2025: @OHio State
2026: Ohio State
2027: Michigan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on June 14, 2023, 12:36:55 PM
Not so much a ranking as an ordered list, but here ya go:

https://www.astronomy.com/observing/20-of-the-best-places-to-view-the-2024-great-north-american-eclipse/


My house is directly beneath the projected path. People have asked if I am going to allow people to camp in my yard. I'm not interested unless the price is right. LOL
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 14, 2023, 06:59:02 PM
My house is directly beneath the projected path. People have asked if I am going to allow people to camp in my yard. I'm not interested unless the price is right. LOL

Everybody has a price!

My BIL has some land outside of Fredericksburg, TX that is also pretty much directly on the center line of totality.  We're going to park our RVs for the entire weekend and have a total White Trash Bash out there.  We'll bring the guns, do some shooting, cook on the campfire, and have a rednecky good time.  I'm looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 14, 2023, 08:03:26 PM
I'd eat there based on that menu.

And this is part of the menu. Merktz on a burger is a Chicago thing. I've seen it in Wisconsin too.


[img width=263.998 height=499.997]https://i.imgur.com/lPegpFk.png[/img]
That menu's got Ketchup on it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 14, 2023, 08:06:50 PM
That menu's got Ketchup on it
Ketchup is fine. Ketchup on a Chicago Dog is not. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 14, 2023, 08:36:31 PM
The largest NFL stadium by capacity is only 16th largest in the U.S.
.
College football rules!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 14, 2023, 10:08:15 PM
and have a rednecky good time.  I'm looking forward to it.
so white sox and Blue Ribbon then.Ya Buddy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 14, 2023, 10:15:10 PM
Ketchup is fine. Ketchup on a Chicago Dog is not.

I thought that ketchup was verboten on all dogs, Chicago style or not? 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 14, 2023, 10:23:12 PM
so white sox and Blue Ribbon then.Ya Buddy
Oh I'll still be drinking Celis and Live Oak, of course.  I'm not a savage.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 14, 2023, 10:51:02 PM
I thought that ketchup was verboten on all dogs, Chicago style or not?


Ketchup only is acceptable if you're 3 years old.
Ketchup and mustard is okay, but you're on thin ice.
Mustard + diced onion is perfect for me.
idk why Chicago-style wants to put half the farm on a dog.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 15, 2023, 01:04:08 AM
I thought that ketchup was verboten on all dogs, Chicago style or not?
In Chicago, yes. But outside Chicago, you do you. Just don't call it a Chicago Dog if ketchup is near. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 15, 2023, 06:56:16 AM
In Chicago, yes. But outside Chicago, you do you. Just don't call it a Chicago Dog if ketchup is near.
This is correct. No ketchup on a Chicago dog.

Lots of California people have moved to AZ. Every restaurant must have ketchup.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 07:18:26 AM
I wouldn't have ketchup near any hot dog or sausage thing myself.  It's almost as bad as putting sugar on grits.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 15, 2023, 09:26:09 AM
ketchup is for children
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 15, 2023, 09:26:50 AM
Don't tell my Cali wife that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 09:27:57 AM
ketchup is for children
This is an over generalization, but has truth in it.  I use almost no ketchup now, wasn't the case when I was 10.

This is why beer tastes awful the first time most folks try it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 15, 2023, 09:32:36 AM
well, my children still use ketchup occasionally

they are in their 20s
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 09:44:59 AM
I use it occasionally, too, on fries, if they are mediocre.  That's about it.

Well, I make chili with it of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 15, 2023, 09:55:59 AM
now that my daughters have moved out - there is no ketchup in my house
other sauces have more and better flavor
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 09:59:39 AM
The history of "ketchup" is quite interesting, I think, and perhaps belongs in that thread, I may have posted it there already.

The Surprisingly Ancient History of Ketchup | HISTORY (https://www.history.com/news/ketchup-surprising-ancient-history)

The ancestor of modern ketchup was completely tomato-free. Though tomato plants were brought to [color=var(--c-link-content)]England[/color] (https://www.history.com/topics/british-history) from [color=var(--c-link-content)]South America[/color] (https://www.history.com/topics/south-america) in the 1500s, their fruits weren’t eaten for centuries since some people considered them poisonous. (When wealthy Englishmen ate from lead pewter plates, for example, the acid of the tomato leeched the lead into the food, causing lead poisoning.) Instead, the precursor to our ketchup was a fermented fish sauce from southern China. As far back as 300 B.C., texts began documenting the use of fermented pastes made from fish entrails, meat byproducts and soybeans. The fish sauce, called “ge-thcup” or “koe-cheup” by speakers of the Southern Min dialect, was easy to store on long ocean voyages. 

Heinz is famous for its '57 varieties,' but by the time the company started using the number they already had more than 60 products. The number is in fact made up from Heinz’s and his wife’s favorite numbers…5 and 7.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 11:41:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/TVvioZl.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 15, 2023, 11:44:39 AM
Washington/Oregon so important they are listed twice!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 15, 2023, 01:31:08 PM
Washington/Oregon so important they are listed twice!
Did you miss a column?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 15, 2023, 01:41:49 PM
Probably. I'm ready for the next level up on the readers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 15, 2023, 03:04:26 PM
This is an over generalization, but has truth in it.  I use almost no ketchup now, wasn't the case when I was 10.

This is why beer tastes awful the first time most folks try it.
Well if you don't put ketchup on a dog why put it in your beer? Some people's kids,sheesh
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 15, 2023, 04:19:20 PM
Not sure if there's any ketchup beers out there, but...

(https://i.imgur.com/ZMQU5oN.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 08:27:54 AM
I would tend to rank that near the bottom ... just sayin' ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 08:30:05 AM
Pennsylvania?

U.S. News & World Report: Pennsylvania and Florida towns in the Top 10 places to retire (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/u-s-news-world-report-pennsylvania-and-florida-towns-in-the-top-10-places-to-retire/ar-AA1cDmPw?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=de89c25e97684f2f80f3699d651002dc&ei=9)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 08:36:21 AM
I think at best such rankings could provide useful information on criteria one might consider for a retirement location.  Maybe you didn't know the income tax situation on retiree income in certain states for example.  (I hadn't considered ATL initially because I didn't know about this.)

CoL figures can be useful.  Watchouts can be useful.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 08:45:15 AM
Find Apartments for Rent and Rentals - Get Your Walk Score (https://www.walkscore.com/)

Another ranking, walk score.  While this obviously is going to be variable depending, I personally think a fairly high score is important for a retirement location because as we age, walking becomes a primary form of exercise and getting out and about.

My wife and I do more than walk, but we walk quite a bit as well, and as we age, that could become the main thing for us.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 16, 2023, 09:41:07 AM
I would tend to rank that near the bottom ... just sayin' ...
I've never had it, but can't imagine liking it.

We do have an Oskar Blues brewery here in Austin, perhaps I'll try it someday.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 16, 2023, 10:06:44 AM
Find Apartments for Rent and Rentals - Get Your Walk Score (https://www.walkscore.com/)

Another ranking, walk score.  While this obviously is going to be variable depending, I personally think a fairly high score is important for a retirement location because as we age, walking becomes a primary form of exercise and getting out and about.

My wife and I do more than walk, but we walk quite a bit as well, and as we age, that could become the main thing for us.
well, when the GTI gets older and the clutch goes out......... you'll be doing more walkin
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 10:12:10 AM
well, when the GTI gets older and the clutch goes out......... you'll be doing more walkin
Yeah, we could manage without a car, renting one on occasion.  Hopefully the clutch lasts a while ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 10:17:16 AM
We could not manage without a car. It's 8 miles to the grocery store or gas station. 12 miles to CVS.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 16, 2023, 10:31:02 AM
8 miles to the nearest grocery store. 7 miles to the nearest gas station. 12 miles to better options. No stop lights.  Little traffic.  10 minutes.

4 blocks to the bar!  All down hill
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on June 16, 2023, 10:41:22 AM
[img width=274.381 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/TVvioZl.png[/img]
Games on the list involving B1G teams:
Some things that jump out:

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 16, 2023, 10:44:32 AM
I've never had it, but can't imagine liking it.

We do have an Oskar Blues brewery here in Austin, perhaps I'll try it someday.
Oskar Blues is solid. Dale's Pale Ale is probably their most well-known, and is (like a pale ale should be) moderate strength and hoppiness, not unlike Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. I know you're not an IPA guy, and it's not an IPA, but it also isn't a German lager. 

Their Mama's Little Yella Pils is also good, and that puts you more into traditional lager territory. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 12:23:16 PM
The 20 Best U.S. Cities to Live in and Visit in 2023 - AFAR (https://www.afar.com/magazine/best-large-cities-in-the-united-states-to-live-in-and-visit)

I suspect nearly everyone here would have a quite different ranking....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 12:29:51 PM
The first 5 on that list are out.

There are 3, maybe 4-5 on that list I'd consider visiting.

Chicago doesn't count. I'm forced to go there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 16, 2023, 12:47:25 PM
Oskar Blues is solid. Dale's Pale Ale is probably their most well-known, and is (like a pale ale should be) moderate strength and hoppiness, not unlike Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. I know you're not an IPA guy, and it's not an IPA, but it also isn't a German lager.

Their Mama's Little Yella Pils is also good, and that puts you more into traditional lager territory.
Oh yeah, I've been to the Oskar Blues brewery many times and agree it's solid.  I was speaking specifically about that Oskar Blues mustard beer that I posted a picture of.  I can't imagine liking it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't try it if they had it available upon my next visit.

Their Austin location is very close to the n ew MLS stadium for the Austin FC soccer team (in fact the stadium is sort of at the epicenter of about 7 or 8 very good local breweries), so before games we sometimes start off tailgating there.  Maybe next game I'll look for the mustard beer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 12:59:57 PM
College football conference rankings: SEC, Big Ten battle at top as ACC, Big 12 challenge ahead of 2023 (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-conference-rankings-sec-big-ten-battle-at-top-a-211145023/#2177396)

Click bait again of course, predictable ranking, not interesting really///
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 01:12:31 PM
The Big Ten is not on the same level as the SEC - on the field.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 01:19:32 PM
Maybe, but as noted at times, an SEC team can "luck out" and play some pretty weak conference games.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 01:25:45 PM
The same applies to the Big Ten. And then on the big stage, exposure happens.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 01:34:14 PM
I don't think Ohio State was exposed in the playoff last year at all.  Michigan has been I'd opine, twice.  And I recall how OSU ran over Alabama a few years back.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 16, 2023, 02:06:14 PM
That's why I said elsewhere that OSU was closest in all of CFB.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 16, 2023, 02:36:56 PM
my opinion is that the SEC is some better at the top

Georgia/Bama better than OSU/MU

and some better overall, top to bottom

but not as much as many others seem to think
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 16, 2023, 02:38:44 PM
College football "most valuable programs"-- another ranking.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/what-valuable-college-football-programs

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 16, 2023, 05:05:20 PM
The Big Ten is not on the same level as the SEC - on the field.
You just have to look at playoff record.
16-5  SEC
8-8   ACC
3-7   B1G
1-5   XII
1-2   PAC
0-1   ND
0-1   AAC
.
And 2 of the SEC losses were to fellow SEC teams.  
SEC's record is from 3 teams, each of which has a NC.
B1G's record is from 3 teams, but 2 of them are winless in the playoff.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 05:06:04 PM
my opinion is that the SEC is some better at the top

Georgia/Bama better than OSU/MU

and some better overall, top to bottom

but not as much as many others seem to think
That's about where I'm at too.  Some folks, not us, like to dramaticize what probably are smaller differences.  And of course UGA/Bama could fall off at some point, probably not that soon because of 'crootin'.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 16, 2023, 05:07:33 PM
yup, some point is usually a coaching change

that obviously can change crootin
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 16, 2023, 05:22:35 PM
Saban of course will retire at some point in the not too distant.  I don't expect Bama to fall off a cliff, but they could become more ordinary, still probably quite good at times.

I'm still a bit surprised how long Texas/USC/Nebraska have been down, though the first two at least get ranked pretty high in the preseason stuff.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 17, 2023, 09:02:18 AM
Stud running backs from the mid-70s..Joe Washington, Archie Griffin and Anthony Davis

(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/353030810_3556277318031909_493767479009997666_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=WqT2emQeQJcAX8k0ILn&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfClga9RNYlK-o9d5yvh6PQ7nWB0GKyDIgF-LtcnnICuJg&oe=64925327)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 17, 2023, 07:38:41 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.purewow.com/food/best-hot-dog-brands-ranked/amp

We typically get Hebrew National, solely because they have them for cheap at Costco. But Nathan's makes the best I've had. The specialty ones have always been lackluster for me, but not sure which brands I've had.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 17, 2023, 07:56:37 PM
Nathan's bun-length, please.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 17, 2023, 08:05:14 PM
I should try them but, I hate to pay $5/lb for hot dogs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 18, 2023, 07:16:44 AM
I think, for me, a "good hot dog" is really about the toppings.  Maybe some horrible turkey dog would overshadow them.  I used to get the hot dog and Coke at Costco for $1,50  but my wife doesn't like their fast food so we usually don't stop though she tells me to go ahead, I don't.

I figure they likely aren't good for me anyway.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 18, 2023, 09:05:52 AM
daily dose of sodium in 2 bites
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 18, 2023, 09:10:01 AM
It's amazing how much salt is in nearly all processed food.  My five major food groups are:

salt
fat
alcohol
caffeine
sugar

sips coffee ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 18, 2023, 09:25:07 AM
I think, for me, a "good hot dog" is really about the toppings.  Maybe some horrible turkey dog would overshadow them.  I used to get the hot dog and Coke at Costco for $1,50  but my wife doesn't like their fast food so we usually don't stop though she tells me to go ahead, I don't.

I figure they likely aren't good for me anyway.
That was a good deal.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 18, 2023, 09:26:11 AM
hot dog equals salt + fat

put come ketchup on it = sugar

wash it down with a beer
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 07:54:51 AM
A ranking of "best hotdogs" would be among the most useless of that ilk I think.

I can live with restaurant rankings as I may glance at them and think "Never heard of this place, menu sounds decent, maybe we'll try it."

"Best fast foods" would be silly IMHO, nearly all of us have tried them and have some sort of preference.  Best chain restaurants?  Nearly the same thing.

A lot of things are rightly dominated by personal preference.  

Preseason football rankings can be sort of "OK" in the sense they may have some sleeper team identified like say Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 09:21:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/iTxJt8L.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 09:37:13 AM
Kind of interesting how many schools have "State" in their name, and how many are private.  The JMU in Virginia seems odd to me.  The New England schools are often a mystery to me.  USCe got the nod over Clemson.  Two are named for cities, maybe more than two?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2023, 09:38:59 AM
Several of the "State" schools were formally "A&M" schools.  Oklahoma State, New Mexico State, Utah State all come to mind, there are probably more.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 09:48:43 AM
It's a varied moniker of course.  Georgia State is a large school in ATL that caters a lot to nonresidential students (though that has changed of late).  They now have a football team and play in the old Turner Field Statdium.  I think some like South Caroline and Alabama are HBCU types, while FSU and Miss State and NCSU are "normal" schools.

Is Texas A&M the only major A&M left?  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 10:55:57 AM
Phil Steele has named seven Georgia players to his four-team Preseason All-American squad. Tight end Brock Bowers (https://247sports.com/Player/Brock-Bowers-46082532), center Sedrick Van Pran (https://247sports.com/Player/Sedrick-Van-Pran-46052225) and linebacker Jamon Dumas-Johnson (https://247sports.com/Player/Jamon-Dumas-Johnson-46085991) made the first team, safeties Javon Bullard (https://247sports.com/Player/Javon-Bullard-46085843) and Malaki Starks (https://247sports.com/Player/Malaki-Starks-46094592) made the second team, and offensive guard Tate Ratledge (https://247sports.com/Player/Tate-Ratledge-94238) and defensive end Mykel Williams (https://247sports.com/Player/Mykel-Williams-46097211) made the third team.

These are all good players, no doubt, but how often does anyone care to check back with preseason vs post season lists of this ilk?

Not very.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2023, 12:22:09 PM
Is Texas A&M the only major A&M left? 


Only one I know of, only one in FBS, but there could be some smaller schools that still have it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on June 19, 2023, 12:26:02 PM
Tennessee State is also an HBCU.

Some other universities with State in the name were originally normal schools/teachers colleges. Minnesota, Illinois, and Arizona come to mind for those. 

Iowa, Washington, and the Dakota "state" college were pure agriculture research schools. 

North Carolina A&T (another HBCU) is the only other university that has an output like A&M.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2023, 12:29:18 PM
Kansas State was the large land-grant school in Kansas, don't know if they were ever an A&M though.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2023, 01:44:00 PM
Kansas State was the large land-grant school in Kansas, don't know if they were ever an A&M though.
MSU was known as the Agricultural State College of Michigan back in the day. The Michigan State College and finally MSU.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2023, 01:59:29 PM
There is no Georgia A&M except in fiction.  There is an Alabama A&M.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2023, 02:03:46 PM
There is no Georgia A&M except in fiction.  There is an Alabama A&M.
There was no Texas State when the movie "Necessary Roughness" was made in 1991.

There is, now.


(https://i.imgur.com/7AUbXxF.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Uiq1cUs.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 19, 2023, 05:42:35 PM

Quote
A ranking of "best hotdogs" would be among the most useless of that ilk I think.
Crowdsourcing rankings for food is among the best uses. Otherwise, you are deciding what to buy from the jingles you hear on television.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 19, 2023, 07:26:57 PM
[img width=499.997 height=319.997]https://i.imgur.com/iTxJt8L.png[/img]


Holy Cross over Boston College? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 19, 2023, 07:44:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8uSSkiy.png)



Not anything special the last couple of decades, but a very storied past.
15 HBCU National Championships, mostly when there was segregation.
Won the first I-AA National Championship in 1978.
HOF HC Jake Gaither went 204-36-4....better win% than Switzer or Osborne. 
Famous alums are Bob Hayes, Nate Newton, and Andre Dawson.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 19, 2023, 08:12:09 PM
Several of the "State" schools were formally "A&M" schools.  Oklahoma State, New Mexico State, Utah State all come to mind, there are probably more.
Oregon and Washington 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 20, 2023, 07:45:32 AM
list of the 10 countries in the world where people smoke the most.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 26, 2023, 09:46:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/d9zJGPL.png)

Based on what exactly?  One could drive reasonable rankings based on several different things.  UCLA?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 26, 2023, 10:09:17 AM
it's the rose bowl
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 26, 2023, 10:11:51 AM
it's the rose bowl
Only on one day per year. Every other day it looks like this:


(https://i.imgur.com/n2LPBTV.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 26, 2023, 10:13:17 AM
obviously not based on attendance

hence, the Ducks at #7
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 26, 2023, 10:16:14 AM
I have heard VaTech gets rowdy at times.  South Carolina does as well.  Clemson I think gets pretty loud.  Auburn.  Iowa.  Texas.  

Anyway, a ranking based on attendance would be quantitative, one based on noise level would be guesswork really, but with some basis.  One based on appearance ... qualitative, subjective.  Fun?  Ole Miss.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 08:05:22 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/355342731_788807556007659_8934749551828452963_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=sgVYUA_NDtgAX_UE9_7&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDsZxCxlQzHs4NLu4TldeCTp_W9n08tWKJZpt4Dpihq-g&oe=64A03F0C)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2023, 08:06:52 AM
I'm always worried, the Larry Munson school of anxiety.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2023, 09:03:11 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/pNjjUWf.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 09:19:55 AM
Agreed - 1993-1997 I was plenty worried about the Huskers

60-3
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 02:26:14 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/355114805_286894873895771_8016179484001193152_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=rE-NHWSLSxEAX9EHwlL&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBNpZiGXfU1GCjKli7dP-XRQU82B6mmA785qxh6dJu_gQ&oe=649F972F)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 02:27:05 PM
nothing from the 12 or the PAC?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2023, 02:39:26 PM
We have yet to see UW's defense play a game.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 05:17:25 PM
The results are in, and the best ice cream shop in the United States resides in Omaha.

Yelp named Coneflower Creamery as the top ice cream shop in the U.S. in their annual ranking.

Coneflower, which also ranked among Yelp's top spots last year, has two locations in Omaha, one in the Blackstone District and one in Millwork Commons.

“It’s ice cream in its most pure form. I can’t even put into words how clean and beautiful this ice cream tastes,” one Yelp reviewer said.

The list is compiled using businesses in the ice cream category, ranked by total volume, ratings of reviews between Jan. 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, and more, according to Yelp.

“You know the ice cream is amazing when you show up on a 10-degree night and [the place is] packed. When we walked in, the smell was all that was needed. I had a sample of the Archetype Coffee, and now I have to have this ice cream once a week. My family has tried specialty ice cream places in California and Las Vegas, and we all agree this is by far the best ice cream we’ve ever had,” another Yelp reviewer said.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 27, 2023, 05:21:07 PM
The results are in, and the best ice cream shop in the United States resides in Omaha.
There's a really good Chocolate Shop in West Lafayette. 

Some of the most memorable (and unrememberable) times I've ever had in a Chocolate Shop. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 27, 2023, 05:28:24 PM
There's a really good Chocolate Shop in West Lafayette.

Some of the most memorable (and unrememberable) times I've ever had in a Chocolate Shop.
Speaking of chocolate...
I hosted a dinner for friends some years back.
As I was preparing, some normal movie was playing on HBO.
We're all at the table enjoying my amazing cooking, when we all notice some interesting sounds from the TV.
A skin-e-max movie was playing, with some couple having fun with chocolate syrup in a shower.
We crack up laughing, talk, and the night is over.
One female friend from that night went out of town for awhile, and I took care of her dog (access to her house).
She gets back and hours after returning, sees the chocolate syrup bottles I set in her shower.
She said she almost died, because she couldn't breathe, from laughing so hard.
Chocolate.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 27, 2023, 06:02:39 PM
Speaking of chocolate...
I hosted a dinner for friends some years back.
As I was preparing, some normal movie was playing on HBO.
We're all at the table enjoying my amazing cooking, when we all notice some interesting sounds from the TV.
A skin-e-max movie was playing, with some couple having fun with chocolate syrup in a shower.
We crack up laughing, talk, and the night is over.
One female friend from that night went out of town for awhile, and I took care of her dog (access to her house).
She gets back and hours after returning, sees the chocolate syrup bottles I set in her shower.
She said she almost died, because she couldn't breathe, from laughing so hard.
Chocolate.
That's awesome! Very inventive!

Not sure if this was a friend who was purely platonic, or who you hoped might be more than purely platonic, but if the latter... I hope it worked out. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 06:06:55 PM
Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed Beef: What's the Healthy Choice?

Next time you shop for groceries, you can find a wide variety of choices at the meat counter, including grass-fed beef, an alternative to conventionally farmed beef.

Grass-fed cattle spend their entire lives grazing from pastures. Here in Iowa and the Upper Midwest, grass-fed cattle are also fed hay in the winter, when the grass isn’t growing and pastures are covered in snow.

Grain-finished, or conventionally farmed, cattle also spend the majority of their lives grazing from pastures. When cattle are grain-finished, they eat a balanced diet of grain, local feed ingredients, and hay or forage in the feedyard.


Is grass-fed beef healthier?
Food marketers and health influencers often claim that grass-fed beef provides more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef. Omega-3 fatty acids are considered “good” fats for heart health.

Studies have shown that grass-fed beef has more omega-3s than conventional grain-fed beef.

However, that doesn’t mean grass-fed beef is a significantly better source of omega-3s than grain-fed beef, says Ruth Litchfield, an Iowa State University nutrition scientist.

A 3-ounce serving of grass-fed ground beef has about 0.015 grams of omega-3 fatty acids, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Nutrient Database. “So 100ths of a gram of omega-3s,” Litchfield notes. (For a real-world visual, 1 gram is equal in size to one raisin.)

In comparison, a 3-ounce serving of conventional ground beef has about 0.003 grams of omega-3s, according to the National Nutrient Database.

Even though conventional beef has less omega-3s than grass-fed beef, it isn’t a clinically significant difference to human health, Litchfield says.



What is a good source of omega-3s?
Beef in general – whether grass-fed or conventional – isn’t considered a good source of omega-3s, Litchfield explains.

Seafood, in comparison, is an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids. A 3-ounce serving of wild-caught Alaskan salmon has about 1.5 grams of omega-3 fatty acids, much greater than the 0.015 grams of omega-3s in grass-fed beef, according to the National Nutrient Database.

“You would have to consume 100 times the amount of (grass-fed) ground beef to get the same amount of omega-3s as the similar portion of salmon,” Litchfield says. “So in the scheme of things, you can’t eat enough (grass-fed beef) to make a significant impact on your (omega-3) intake.”



What are the nutritional benefits of beef?
However, all beef – grass-fed and grain-fed - is considered an excellent source of many other micronutrients, including B12, iron, zinc and high-quality protein, that are essential for human health, Litchfield says.

The USDA also recommends lean beef as part of a heart-healthy diet in its MyPlate dietary guidelines.

So whether it’s grass-fed or grain-fed beef, both are nutritious choices, Litchfield says.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 27, 2023, 06:16:36 PM
“You would have to consume 100 times the amount of (grass-fed) ground beef to get the same amount of omega-3s as the similar portion of salmon,” Litchfield says. “So in the scheme of things, you can’t eat enough (grass-fed beef) to make a significant impact on your (omega-3) intake.”
I'm willing to try. 

(Actually, we eat a lot of fish. So I'm sure my omega-3 intake is fine.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 06:23:05 PM
I don't eat much salmon

can get Chinook salmon in Lake Oahe about 750 miles away on the Missouri river
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 06:23:38 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/355366992_789663672588714_8713337686597819770_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8FWmFG3wEHAAX-qwh2b&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAbLSXPk75yZ6MdGSkWSWbIUHMEjfM7U_gRkLf9xEkpdA&oe=64A000E5)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 07:20:47 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/356422590_654855486687402_1480112940479397870_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=KtegMkVdvQQAX8nIlIS&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBdGLzQGKv4SjNvCP64MtmTLrxzsQTAv2ePtc0kgUyjNQ&oe=649FDE62)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2023, 09:32:42 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/net-winnings-the-best-seafood-restaurant-in-every-state/ss-AA1d6sFQ?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=3a3685e8702e4aee97c37c8cd45bb810&ei=100#image=29 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/net-winnings-the-best-seafood-restaurant-in-every-state/ss-AA1d6sFQ?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=3a3685e8702e4aee97c37c8cd45bb810&ei=100#image=29)

Nebraska: Plank Seafood Provisions
Omaha

Respect to Plank Seafood for its oyster bar, but also for the Prince Edward Island mussels. And the snapper ceviche. And the calamari. And the grilled walleye.


I've been there and might believe it.  Was very good, but didn't wow me.
_____________________________

Iowa: Catfish Charlie's

Dubuque Catfish Charlie's doesn't stop at catfish — fried oysters, jambalaya, and bourbon salmon all grace a spicy Cajun-inspired menu.

Haven't been there, but I'm skeptical as hell
_____________________________

South Dakota: Oyster Bay Bar and Casino
Deadwood

The most legendary city in South Dakota — and perhaps the most iconic of the Old West — is Deadwood. Its Oyster Bay was a legend before being featured on the Travel Channel. Famous for its oyster shooters, Oyster Bay fosters a raucous atmosphere complete with live music and karaoke.


I've been there, I'm skeptical
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on June 27, 2023, 10:16:42 PM
Ice cream is fine and dandy but not quite as good as frozen custard. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 28, 2023, 04:01:56 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/355366992_789663672588714_8713337686597819770_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8FWmFG3wEHAAX-qwh2b&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAbLSXPk75yZ6MdGSkWSWbIUHMEjfM7U_gRkLf9xEkpdA&oe=64A000E5)
Several of these guys are like real-life video game outliers....Bo, obviously.  Vick was too fast.  Alstott just bulldozing dudes, Bavaro dragging guys down the field, etc.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 28, 2023, 04:04:11 AM
I'd rather have fried catfish over more expensive salmon.  I don't get why salmon is a whole big thing.  It's fine, but I don't get why it's a kind of fancy fish.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2023, 07:02:50 AM
Salmon quality varies a lot.  We look for the steelhead trout version, it's less fatty.  Salmon can be grilled effectively which is not the case with many fish types and has a meatier flavor if done properly.  Fresh fish beats frozen any day, something like Nothern pike if fresh is incredible.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on June 28, 2023, 07:32:54 AM
Love grilled or poached salmon.  Never liked Northern pike, tasted too weedy and are full of tiny bones that don't filet out.  But its a blast to fish for pike on ice with tip ups.  Favorite non-trout family fish for eating is walleye.  Yellow perch maybe tastes slightly better but are kind of small.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2023, 07:45:01 AM
Yeah, fresh walleye is terrific, probably my favorite white fish.  I've had grilled swordfish and shark that was "OK" but both need some kind of sauce I think.  Branzina is really good, I've never had it fresh.  I think it's also called "loup de Mer" in France?   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 28, 2023, 08:08:25 AM
Grouper, triple tail or triggerfish (the best) for me.

Triggers dine on crab, lobster, shrimp, scallops, etc. Of course they taste great!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on June 28, 2023, 08:13:18 AM
Several of these guys are like real-life video game outliers....Bo, obviously.  Vick was too fast.  Alstott just bulldozing dudes, Bavaro dragging guys down the field, etc.



Alstott wasn’t really a fullback though.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 28, 2023, 08:14:57 AM
he was built like one
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 28, 2023, 08:16:05 AM
But its a blast to fish for pike on ice with tip ups.  
cause you can sit where it's warm with the game on the tube and sip your drink!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2023, 09:44:08 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/LupulKO.png)

Copenhagen was great, we thought, not too expensive.  Vancouver is very nice also, $$$$.  Toronto?  Huh.  Calgary?  Not for me, at all.  The Swiss cities would be $$$ also, same with Osaka.  Australia has too many things trying to kill you.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 28, 2023, 09:46:27 AM
by what metrics?

half of them get snow
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2023, 10:41:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ilf086O.png)

I've flown on a few of these, they are really all the same IMHO.  I do hear folks say Singapore is really nice.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 28, 2023, 11:08:47 AM
Cathay Pacific is quite nice. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2023, 11:24:11 AM
The main item for me making it "nicer" is leg room.  We flew Turkish back from Istanbul, I could not discern any difference between them and Delta.  They didn't serve pork, but that's rarely served by anyone.

I just got an email from Delta saying we were upgraded for first on our trip to Vancouver next week, I'll take it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 28, 2023, 12:00:23 PM
The main item for me making it "nicer" is leg room.  We flew Turkish back from Istanbul, I could not discern any difference between them and Delta.  They didn't serve pork, but that's rarely served by anyone.
Ahh yeah. I have the same legroom concerns. Flying at 6'5" is not always pleasant.

When I was flying Cathay a bunch I had frequent flyer status on American (codeshare w/ Cathay), and was always able to get the exit row with tons of legroom. That's huge on a 12+ hour flight. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 28, 2023, 12:12:25 PM
I agree, and I'm 5-9. We always choose premium economy as we don't have to pay for it. Once in a blue moon we'll get bumped into first class, which is even better. We have exec platinum on AA.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on June 28, 2023, 12:33:27 PM
Grouper, triple tail or triggerfish (the best) for me.

Triggers dine on crab, lobster, shrimp, scallops, etc. Of course they taste great!
Triple tail is delicious.  

favorite fish is walleye.   Not even close.  

have you tried Cobia?   Amazing.  My new favorite salt, water fish.   Wrapped in tinfoil after a white brush of olive oil, salt, and pepper to taste in 5 to 7 minutes on the grill.

Pike is actually very good eating but the challenges, the “Y” bone.  When I’ve gone into northern Canada fly in fishing the guides up there or expert at removing the way bone and the pike is delicious if it’s done correctly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 28, 2023, 12:35:33 PM
Love grilled or poached salmon.  Never liked Northern pike, tasted too weedy and are full of tiny bones that don't filet out.  But its a blast to fish for pike on ice with tip ups.  Favorite non-trout family fish for eating is walleye.  Yellow perch maybe tastes slightly better but are kind of small.
They know how to do Pike in Quebec start with cold clean lakes - like the water they brew with
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on June 28, 2023, 12:37:23 PM
They know how to do Pike in Quebec start with cold clean lakes - like the water they brew with
This!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 28, 2023, 12:40:52 PM
 Australia has too many things trying to kill you.
Truth they have 5 of the top 10 the deadliest creatures on earth
Salt Water Croc
Bull Shark
Box Jellyfish
Some poisonous Snake
Some poisonous Spider
Where as we just have Congress and inner city thugs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 28, 2023, 12:53:28 PM
Triple tail is delicious. 

favorite fish is walleye.  Not even close. 

have you tried Cobia?  Amazing.  My new favorite salt, water fish.  Wrapped in tinfoil after a white brush of olive oil, salt, and pepper to taste in 5 to 7 minutes on the grill.

Pike is actually very good eating but the challenges, the “Y” bone.  When I’ve gone into northern Canada fly in fishing the guides up there or expert at removing the way bone and the pike is delicious if it’s done correctly.
I forgot to mention Cobia. That's excellent too. For my fish, I always use the side burner and the cast iron. Get a nice sear that way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 28, 2023, 08:41:23 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/355366992_789663672588714_8713337686597819770_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=8FWmFG3wEHAAX-qwh2b&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAbLSXPk75yZ6MdGSkWSWbIUHMEjfM7U_gRkLf9xEkpdA&oe=64A000E5)
Psht.

Bo Jackson had fewer NFL rushing yards than Jim Harbaugh. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 28, 2023, 08:49:36 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzuNNDNXoAASac-?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on June 28, 2023, 09:33:29 PM
Pike + cold water + y bone removal skills = sublime

Yellow perch and bluegill are still worth the work.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 29, 2023, 12:41:05 AM


Escargot? 

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/06/720/405/GettyImages-482129088.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 29, 2023, 01:08:32 AM
[img width=487.998 height=499.988]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzuNNDNXoAASac-?format=png&name=small[/img]
NAU?  How?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 29, 2023, 01:23:57 AM
I don't even recognize the logo for number 26. 

An A, with a polar bear walking in front of it? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 29, 2023, 07:11:05 AM
I don't even recognize the logo for number 26.

An A, with a polar bear walking in front of it?
Arizona
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 29, 2023, 07:24:17 AM
Haha.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 29, 2023, 07:58:24 AM
University of Alaska Fairbanks Athletics - Official Athletics Website (alaskananooks.com) (https://alaskananooks.com/index.aspx)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on June 29, 2023, 08:02:44 AM
Triple tail is delicious. 

favorite fish is walleye.  Not even close. 

have you tried Cobia?  Amazing.  My new favorite salt, water fish.  Wrapped in tinfoil after a white brush of olive oil, salt, and pepper to taste in 5 to 7 minutes on the grill.

Pike is actually very good eating but the challenges, the “Y” bone.  When I’ve gone into northern Canada fly in fishing the guides up there or expert at removing the way bone and the pike is delicious if it’s done correctly.
I concur. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 29, 2023, 11:07:00 AM
Big Ten projected order of finish, per Athlon Sports

Championship: Michigan over Wisconsin

EAST

1. Michigan (12-1, 8-1)
2. Ohio State (11-1, 8-1)
3. Penn State (10-2, 7-2)
4. Maryland (7-5, 4-5)
5. Michigan State (6-6, 4-5)
6. Rutgers (5-7, 3-6)
7. Indiana (4-8, 2-7)

WEST

1. Wisconsin (9-4, 6-3)
2. Iowa (8-4, 5-4)
3. Minnesota (7-5, 5-4)
4. Illinois (6-6, 4-5)
5. Nebraska (6-6, 3-6)
6. Purdue (5-7, 3-6)
7. Northwestern (3-9, 1-8)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 29, 2023, 03:01:00 PM
Big Ten All-Transfer Portal Team for 2023

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-all-transfer-portal-team-for-2023 (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-all-transfer-portal-team-for-2023)

QB: Tanner Mordecai, Wisconsin (from SMU)

RB: Sean Tyler, Minnesota (from Western Michigan)
RB: Jaren Mangham, Michigan State (from USF)

WR: Tyrese Chambers, Maryland (from FIU)
WR: Dante Cephas, Penn State (from Kent State);
WR: Corey Crooms/Elijah Spencer, Minnesota
WR: Billy Kemp IV, Nebraska (from Virginia)
WR C.J. Williams, Wisconsin (from USC)


TE: Erick All, Iowa (from Michigan)


OL: Ben Scott, Nebraska (from Arizona State)
OL: Jake Renfro, Wisconsin (from Cincinnati)
OL: Myles Hinton, Michigan (from Stanford)
OL: Drake Nugent, Michigan (from Stanford)
OL: LaDarius Henderson, Michigan (from Arizona State)


DL: Andre Carter, Indiana (from Western Michigan)
DL: Tunmise Adeleye, Michigan State (from Texas A&M)
DL: Jordan Phillips, Maryland (from Tennessee)
DL: Darian Varner, Wisconsin (from Temple)
DL: Josaiah Stewart, Michigan (from Coastal Carolina)


LB: Jacob Mangum-Farrar, Indiana (from Stanford)
LB: Nick Jackson, Iowa (from Virginia)
LB: MJ Sherman, Nebraska (from Georgia)
LB: Ernest Hausmann, Michigan (from Nebraska)


DB: Davison Igbinosun, Ohio State (from Ole Miss)
DB: Ja'Had Carter, Ohio State (from Syracuse)
DB: Jack Henderson, Minnesota (from Southeastern Louisiana)
DB: Salim Turner-Muhammad (Stanford)/Marquis Wilson (Penn State), Purdue
DB: Ja'Quan Sheppard, Maryland (from Cincinnati)
DB: Demetrius Hill, Illinois (from FIU)/Nicario Harper, Illinois (from Louisville)
DB Jason Maitre, Wisconsin (from Boston College)


K: James Turner, Michigan (from Louisville)

P: Riley Thompson, Penn State (from FAU)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on June 29, 2023, 05:32:10 PM
Friggin' booger fell into the treasure trove with the portal - saved his arse good players developed and ready to play. Well that and Bag men
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 30, 2023, 08:19:27 AM
Not the way to build a roster long-term, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 30, 2023, 08:36:42 AM
The Best Burger in Every State of the US (foodandwine.com) (https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/best-burgers-in-us)

(https://i.imgur.com/jSyVGa4.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 30, 2023, 09:17:51 AM
Notice how these various rankings rarely agree at all on such things ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 30, 2023, 09:22:21 AM
Many of these... I would not eat.

The 15 Absolute Best Burgers In The US (mashed.com) (https://www.mashed.com/740114/the-absolute-best-burgers-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=The 15 Absolute Best Burgers In The US,of Burgers - Los Angeles ... More items)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 09:28:31 AM
I'd eat most of them.  I'm definitely down with the Jucy Lucy from Matt's Bar in Minneapolis.

I don't agree that some of them are burgers, though.  At the very least, a burger needs to have one or more ground meat patties at its core.  The Bulgogi Burger looks like a tasty sandwich, but it's just loose shaved grilled meat in the center.  That's not a burger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 30, 2023, 09:44:10 AM
We went to Longhorn yesterday for lunch with my pitching coach, their burger was decent for $10, not fantastic, but OK.  We were out in the 'burbs where everything is a chain, or Mexican (which I would prefer probably).  The good news is that he's a terrific coach and has corrected some errors I was making for the past 60 years or so and it makes a huge difference.

We'll try Mexicanish next time.  The best Mex I've had here is almost entirely Hispanic folks dining there, so I figure it's close to real.

The 10 Best Mexican Restaurants in Atlanta | Atlanta Magazine (https://www.atlantamagazine.com/dining-news/10-best-mexican-restaurants-atlanta/)

It's Numero Quattro on their list here.  This would be a drive for us to get there, miight try it.

1. Taqueria La Oaxaquena
 (http://taquerialaoaxaquena.com/)
You can fight us on this if you insist, but you won’t change our minds that this is the best regional Mexican restaurant in the metro area—which makes it the best, period. Oaxaca is considered the culinary capital of Mexico, and the Oaxacan specialty that chowhounds have raved about for years at this Jonesboro hotspot is the tlayuda: a large grilled tortilla covered pizzalike with refritos, string cheese, avocado, lettuce, and your choice of meat (pork sluiced in chile is tops). You’ll also discover some of the finest tacos in town; handmade corn tortillas are folded around delicacies such as stewed beef cheeks, tripe, and pork al pastor. Chicken tamales, flavored either with mole or salsa verde, have a surprisingly delicate texture. Huaraches, the sandal-shaped boats of masa dough, are sublime loaded with rich goat meat. Our favorite recent discovery: a burrito stuffed with carnitas that blasts the palate in all the right ways. No matter what you order (and you should order it all), you can’t go wrong. 605 Mount Zion Road, Jonesboro, 770-960-3010

I see 3-4 more such rankings on line with little overlap, and this is just in one city.

The Ultimate Guide to Mexican Food in ATL - Best places to eat in Atlanta, GA | Atlanta Eats (https://www.atlantaeats.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-mexican-food-in-atl/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 09:58:15 AM
Sounds good, they're saying all the right things.  I'd give it a try.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 30, 2023, 10:04:21 AM
For me, the great thing about Tex/Mex is the variety of flavors one gets on a plate, and it's usually reasonably priced.  I really like that, perhaps even more than something super fancyish that could be less interesting.  At times, I think the fancy places put more emphasis on appearance/garnish than on the food.  Our neighbor wanted to take us to one near us and my wife flat out didn't like it.  I thought it was "OK" but hardly any entree was under $40.    I had scallops, OK they were fine, but I can do them at home pretty easily, maybe not as prettily.  

We do tacoes/burritoes at home fairly often, they are easy of course, and good, some assembly required.  We have some leftover flatiron steak (that was delicious) we'll use tonight I expect.

We could do a ranking of ethnic food types, I would really struggle not to have 5-6 Number Ones.

TexMex
Indian
Thai
Vietnamese
Japanese
Chinese
Italian
Mediterranean
French
Canadian
...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 10:07:21 AM
I like pretty much all regional cuisines.  There are a handful of ingredients I don't like, but overall I'm open to just about anything.  I too would find it tough to name just one as my "favorite."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 30, 2023, 10:13:05 AM
I'd eat most of them.  I'm definitely down with the Jucy Lucy from Matt's Bar in Minneapolis.

I don't agree that some of them are burgers, though.  At the very least, a burger needs to have one or more ground meat patties at its core.  The Bulgogi Burger looks like a tasty sandwich, but it's just loose shaved grilled meat in the center.  That's not a burger.
Very true, and it kinda gets me when I see something like that.

A burger is centered around a beef patty.

A turkey/chicken/shrimp/whatever burger is not a burger.

Those are turkey/chicken/shrimp/whatever burgers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 10:21:26 AM
Very true, and it kinda gets me when I see something like that.

A burger is centered around a beef patty.

A turkey/chicken/shrimp/whatever burger is not a burger.

Those are turkey/chicken/shrimp/whatever burgers.

Heck, I'm comfortable just calling them "sandwiches" and not burgers.  Not sure why we have to broaden the definitions on things that were perfectly fine as they were.

Just like the fact that chicken fajitas don't actually exist because "fajita" refers to a specific cut of beef.  What you're eating is a taco de pollo asado.  Which is a delicious and tasty thing that has existed for scores of years, long before anyone outside a very specific region had ever heard of fajitas.  There's no need to incorrectly label a chicken taco as a fajita.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 30, 2023, 10:29:05 AM
Most places call a Turkey Burger just that, same with fake meat burgers.  These look like burgers, I'm OK calling them that, since the train has done run anyway.

It's a bit like the real meaning of terms like entree'.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 10:34:07 AM
Most places call a Turkey Burger just that, same with fake meat burgers.  These look like burgers, I'm OK calling them that, since the train has done run anyway.

It's a bit like the real meaning of terms like entree'.

For me, if it's a ground turkey patty, then I'd be okay with calling it a turkey burger.  The "burger" part is a ground patty, and the "turkey" part is the descriptive modifier telling us what kind of burger to expect. If you omit a modifier before "burger" then the assumption is, that it's beef.

However if you take some sliced turkey and put it on a poppy seed bun and call it a "turkey burger" I shall say "Nay, sir" and cry fowl.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 30, 2023, 10:42:15 AM
101!!

The 101 Best Burgers in America (thedailymeal.com) (https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/best-burgers-america/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 30, 2023, 12:29:08 PM
101???


tl;dr

:)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2023, 05:07:58 AM
The Best Cheeseburgers in Every State (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/the-best-cheeseburgers-in-every-state/ar-AAX5ENp?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7c2b102c69d04dbf9439207ea060cf60&ei=7)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2023, 09:57:17 AM
Kansas City smokes BBQ competition to take top spot in national ranking

Kansas City, Missouri, is back on top when it comes to the best barbecue cities in the country.

A company called LawnStarter publishes the annual ranking. The company’s website says it helps homeowners find affordable lawn care services in communities across the country.

The company says it compared the 200 biggest U.S. cities across five categories.

The list includes access to barbecue, customer ratings, competition awards, and the number of barbecue festivals hosted in each city.

In 2022, St. Louis held the top spot.


But 2023 is a new year, and this year Kansas City-style ‘cue rules.

This year Kansas City, Missouri, tops the list with Kansas City, Kansas, coming in third. St. Louis grabs the number two spot on the national list, with Springfield coming in seventh.

The LawnStarter ranking determined that Kansas City smoked the competition by hosting the most barbecue festivals. The Kansas City Barbecue Society also has highest number of teams that have received a perfect 180 barbecue score.

St. Louis has the second-highest number of barbecue vendors per capita, according to the ranking.


In 2021, Kansas City, Missouri, took the top spot with St. Louis in seventh. Overland Park and Olathe in Kansas made the list’s top 40, but KCK did not appear in the top 200.

The full ranking and methodology behind the list can be found online at LawnStarter.com.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2023, 10:05:41 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



(https://i.imgur.com/cJEBra4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 02, 2023, 10:17:31 AM
Yup, though I'd love to sample some of that.  We tried some "famous" BBQ joint in Decatur, AL once, it's was not even mediocre IMHO.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 04, 2023, 08:54:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-T6ylDFuU
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 05, 2023, 08:33:40 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/357533714_315294337495890_5637337890274916748_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Yr8v0czIpw4AX_USqHH&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDpZptN03jdSeyVW3YpO_EaCvuzCRFTpHtByyuEanJZIw&oe=64AAA3CD)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 10:57:17 AM
One of those is NOT like the others.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 10:57:58 AM
THIS is a burger menu.

(https://i.imgur.com/sZUlxAe.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 05, 2023, 11:18:23 AM
not quite burger burgers?

a couple are not like the others
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 03:16:46 PM
I'd go with the patty melt, 8 oz patty. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 03:33:18 PM
Thousand Island dressing... blech.

But I could do a patty melt, sub mustard for the salad dressing, add grilled jalapenos and bacon.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 03:37:05 PM
Patty melt doesn't need any condiments, honestly. The cheese and onions are enough.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 05, 2023, 03:46:05 PM
Thousand Island dressing... blech.

But I could do a patty melt, sub mustard for the salad dressing, add grilled jalapenos and bacon.
Save the Thousand Island for a reuben.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 03:48:58 PM
I like it on a lot of things.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 04:31:21 PM
Russian dressing, yo.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on July 05, 2023, 04:39:39 PM
Russian dressing, yo.
Something Russian you actually like!   KIDDING 😂
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2023, 04:42:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/qVGDsZQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 04:46:36 PM
Something Russian you actually like!  KIDDING 😂
You just made the list, pal.

For the record, I work with a Russian woman who is awesome.  She loathes the current dictator for life and his policies and actions that are destroying her country and her people.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 04:47:40 PM
Russian dressing, yo.
That goes on a Reuben.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 04:49:01 PM
Save the Thousand Island for a reuben.
Russian dressing, yo.
That goes on a Reuben.
You don't say...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 04:50:30 PM
Yo.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on July 05, 2023, 04:53:44 PM
You just made the list, pal.

For the record, I work with a Russian woman who is awesome.  She loathes the current dictator for life and his policies and actions that are destroying her country and her people.
And I agree with her- as does most of humanity 

geez- now I have to work at getting off the list.  🥴
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 04:55:43 PM
Yo.

(https://i.imgur.com/1oXrgGr.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 05:04:52 PM
And I agree with her- as does most of humanity

geez- now I have to work at getting off the list.  🥴
It's a good list to be on, depending on the list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on July 05, 2023, 05:14:17 PM
It's a good list to be on, depending on the list.
I don’t want to be on Ute’s bad list.   Rumor is- he’s got people everywhere.   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 05:14:51 PM
Thank You For Your Support
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 05, 2023, 05:25:14 PM
I don’t want to be on Ute’s bad list.  Rumor is- he’s got people everywhere. 
We all got guys everywhere.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2023, 05:29:25 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/WwHd2kt.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 06, 2023, 09:00:28 AM
We've had a lot of hamburger ranking talk, so...

https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/best-pizza-places-us

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 06, 2023, 09:11:12 AM
We've had a lot of hamburger ranking talk, so...

https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/best-pizza-places-us


This should be called best authentic pizzas.  Americanized pizza is far superior to this crap:



I know it's authentic Italian and has good flavors or whatever, but no.  Give me a pound of cheese and throw some meat on it, please. (https://i.imgur.com/dh89DgI.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 06, 2023, 09:30:10 AM
Agree.  These are all either authentic pizzas, or boutique pizzas.  And I do like that style.

But when someone asks me, "hey, do you want pizza tonight?" I'm probably not thinking about any of these.  I'm thinking about this:

(https://i.imgur.com/aPkuyo2.jpg)

or, preferably for me, this:

(https://i.imgur.com/pfjAeWQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 06, 2023, 09:52:55 AM
meat, cheese, and plenty of Grease 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on July 07, 2023, 07:10:20 AM
Phil Steele's pre-season top 25:


https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/lists/college-football-rankings-phil-steeles-preseason-top-25-ncaa-notre-dame/?itm_source=parsely-api (https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/lists/college-football-rankings-phil-steeles-preseason-top-25-ncaa-notre-dame/?itm_source=parsely-api)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2023, 08:56:17 AM
This should be called best authentic pizzas.  Americanized pizza is far superior to this crap:



I know it's authentic Italian and has good flavors or whatever, but no.  Give me a pound of cheese and throw some meat on it, please. (https://i.imgur.com/dh89DgI.jpg)
Italian beef with giardiniera. That's pizza.


(https://i.imgur.com/vwIwdDY.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2023, 09:28:25 AM
This is gonna piss UTee off right out of the gate.

Top 5 Burger Toppings, Ranked (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/cookingschool/top-5-burger-toppings-ranked/ar-AA1dga3O?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=07eb468910e7429ab26c20c588aecb69&ei=20)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 07, 2023, 10:52:10 AM
This is gonna piss UTee off right out of the gate.

Top 5 Burger Toppings, Ranked (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/cookingschool/top-5-burger-toppings-ranked/ar-AA1dga3O?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=07eb468910e7429ab26c20c588aecb69&ei=20)
Ketchup on a burger.  Lulz.  And pickles can go eff themselves.

I'm indifferent to avocado, those who really like it are free to load it on there.

I like lots of different kinds of burgers, but my standard classic go-to would be:

Ground beef patty
American or cheddar cheese
Grilled onions
Grilled jalapenos
Bacon
Mustard
Toasted bun

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2023, 11:03:39 AM
I thought you'd get PO'd before getting to the toppings, after reading this, and not going further.

"Burgers are the perfect backyard-barbecue food"
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 07, 2023, 12:37:27 PM
I thought you'd get PO'd before getting to the toppings, after reading this, and not going further.

"Burgers are the perfect backyard-barbecue food"
Oh ha!  I guess I skipped over that part or tuned it out.

But as we all know, burgers aren't BBQ.

Well, I suppose you could BBQ a burger, but I'm not sure how it would come out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2023, 12:50:44 PM
Probably terrible?

Dried out to the extreme most likely as all of the fat would be gone. You'd have well-done meat crumbs. Which might be good to sprinkle on... nothing?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 07, 2023, 02:22:30 PM
I agree it would be terrible, but for the opposite reason. 

With such a gentle heat you could stop the cooking process with pretty even doneness across the entire patty. 

But you'd get NO sear, and it won't be on there long enough to develop a bark. So some of the key aspects to the flavor of a burger, caused by the Maillard reaction, wouldn't be there.  

Now, what you COULD do is smoke it low & slow to a temperature short of target, then sear. I.e. reverse sear. That would actually be decent for larger burgers. 

Serious Eats has a sous vide burger recipe as well that's put in the sous vide and then seared to finish. They explicitly say that it's really only good for larger burgers: https://www.seriouseats.com/sous-vide-burgers-recipe

But just on BBQ, low and slow, with no other prep? Aww hell naw...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2023, 02:29:09 PM
I guess it depends on how long you left it on there. Either way.. no.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 07, 2023, 02:42:54 PM
I think you're describing the manufacturing process of hockey pucks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 07, 2023, 07:07:17 PM
I’ve had a couple decent burgers with guac and some pepper jack. Not a bad vibe when done right.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 09, 2023, 11:16:00 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358463772_10227960293659904_5281125595841624825_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=5rdeJIL9vhYAX_EYLdz&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBJaK77SzYclyXwbmLgFvnaoPcz9uP283C_H3F6SDZvCg&oe=64AFC797)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on July 09, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358463772_10227960293659904_5281125595841624825_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=5rdeJIL9vhYAX_EYLdz&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBJaK77SzYclyXwbmLgFvnaoPcz9uP283C_H3F6SDZvCg&oe=64AFC797)
🤮🤮
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 09, 2023, 11:55:36 AM
just don't put it on your burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 09, 2023, 03:49:13 PM
2023 Best Colleges in the U.S. (money.com) (https://money.com/best-colleges/)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 09, 2023, 04:02:19 PM
ranked by the cost to attend?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 09, 2023, 04:11:55 PM
To find colleges that combine quality and affordability, Money analyzed dozens of data points, including graduation rates, cost of attendance, financial aid and alumni salaries. The result? A new star rating system with 736 colleges where your tuition (and time) is likely to pay off.


Looks like a decent list, to me, I'm a bit surprised at some omissions.  Anything private of course is $$$, the publics are usually OK for in state.  I often see the top publics as being UCal, UM, UVA, UNC, ... etc., which doesn't make it so.  From what I could tell circa 1980, UNC undergrad was >> UGA undergrad, I think that gap has narrowed some now.  UF is generally considered to be a good public.  

No Texas schools unless I missed one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 09, 2023, 04:37:14 PM
UT-Arlington???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 09, 2023, 04:47:53 PM
A&M often ranks pretty well in some such lists.  Vandy usually makes one too.  Of those I know anything about, I'd say the list is decent, but I'd probably weight cost heavier than they do.  Sure, Harvard is probably fine, but is it worth the extra cost over in state UVA?  I'd say nyet, especially if you continue to grad school.  Nobody cares where you did your undergrad work.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 09, 2023, 05:20:35 PM
I think you're describing the manufacturing process of hockey pucks.


(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/2nsAAOSwJS5g5RzK/s-l1200.webp)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 08:10:05 AM
Somewhere is a list of good colleges that are good values, e.g., you are better off with a degree from X and $100 K in your pocket than a degree from Harvard and nothing but debt.  I figure IF you graduate from Harvard, there is a pretty good chance you're going post graduate anyway, MBA, MD, MS, PhD, something.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 10, 2023, 08:39:16 AM
Madison is a bargain - especially in-state. $11K.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 08:45:17 AM
Yeah, I think in state publics would be high on a list of value broadly speaking.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 10, 2023, 09:18:25 AM
Illinois is $18-22K in-state, depending on your major.

Michigan is about the same.

Engineering majors pay the most at both places, of course.

Florida is the best bargain of all. An AAU education for $6,400.00/year.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 09:20:06 AM
I think the AAU thing is most relevant for graduate schools.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 10, 2023, 09:24:37 AM
I didn't know what AAU was before UNL's invitation to the B1G

I suppose academics are interested in such things
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 09:26:49 AM
I wouldn't base my decision on undergraduate program on AAU status at all.  Some very good undergraduate schools are not AAU.  It's an indication of having a large graduate program and a lot of grant money.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 10, 2023, 09:54:09 AM
The best engineering schools are those with AAU status. They have the best faculty. It was a must for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 10:07:53 AM
That probably is true, I would opine any degree in a STEM field would benefit from AAU status, so I amend my previous.

You'd likely have better faculty and better facilities.

My buddy took me on a tour of Georgia Tech a couple years back, I was astonished.  I had visited in 1975 and it was really a dump back then.  They benefitted a lot from the Olympics and have grown from about 8,000 undergrads to nearly 40 K.  They still are bad at football of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:50 AM
Yeah I think it matters for engineering and likely other STEM-oriented degrees.  Probably not so much for liberal arts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 10, 2023, 01:04:37 PM
For engineering undergrad, AAU isn't so much a big deal. It's ABET accreditation that you're looking for. Most licensing boards won't accept transcripts for licensure from a non-ABET-accredited school.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 01:07:45 PM
SEC Football: Examining student acceptance rates for all 14 schools (usatoday.com) (https://aggieswire.usatoday.com/lists/texas-aggies-athletics-sec-school-acceptance-rates/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3WrGJ_ej0rJ_bOx8QKpx6xYLY0HGOp1D5YJo5fOurfUMePLsD268EpwKA)

Interesting, to me, if accurate, a lot with ARs well over 50%, some over 80%.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 10, 2023, 01:13:42 PM
For engineering undergrad, AAU isn't so much a big deal. It's ABET accreditation that you're looking for. Most licensing boards won't accept transcripts for licensure from a non-ABET-accredited school.
bf's point about AAU for engineering undergrad is that, large research investment tends to bring top-flight professors, which ultimately helps the undergrad engineering students.

And also, licensure for EEs isn't much of a thing, very few get licensed. So it's definitely a discipline-by-discipline matter.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 01:20:07 PM
I had a buddy at work who had a PhD in chem eng from Columbia.  He was a sharp guy, but didn't work very hard at all, a thing I came to understand later.  That's a rare breed outside academia.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 10, 2023, 02:25:47 PM
bf's point about AAU for engineering undergrad is that, large research investment tends to bring top-flight professors, which ultimately helps the undergrad engineering students.

And also, licensure for EEs isn't much of a thing, very few get licensed. So it's definitely a discipline-by-discipline matter.
Yep. It was extremely rare at UW to have a TA doing instruction. I never had one. Labs are a different story, but even in those the professors were in the room too, most of the time.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 10, 2023, 02:55:36 PM
Yep. It was extremely rare at UW to have a TA doing instruction. I never had one. Labs are a different story, but even in those the professors were in the room too, most of the time.
Yeah, I don't recall a single TA actually teaching a class at Texas.  They were omnipresent for the labs of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 03:18:57 PM
Our TAs did labs, not classroom instruction (other than right before going into the lab), same as above.  I had to TA all five years.  I got pretty good at it finally.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 10, 2023, 03:29:22 PM
I TA'd as an undergrad in Madison. Surveying (taught class) and Open Channel Hydraulics (Lab TA). That was fun.

Also graded homework and reports. Talk about boring.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2023, 04:31:53 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dQdM9Rb.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 10, 2023, 07:29:41 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/357579790_651880186985736_4997865361118327660_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=bYHKLroA5l8AX-VSSlI&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfA89Z2dX50L9TI1dwYGpPTPZBBF8mOf0X6qVYBEcnN3mg&oe=64B125F4)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 10, 2023, 07:51:35 PM
[img width=487.995 height=499.997]https://i.imgur.com/dQdM9Rb.png[/img]


I can't believe that Iowa is not on the list. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 10, 2023, 09:23:39 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358067012_798783375010077_5693521161107302231_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=WvCd7kE9kr0AX9vC6Zo&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCm4aRDsF7Y23TqY64XWgu2bdYbA5rs4RiO7qtdX8e5mQ&oe=64B2598F)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 11, 2023, 09:58:01 AM
https://twitter.com/SickosCommittee/status/1678399640192835589?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1678399640192835589%7Ctwgr%5E348279a025f0bf710a75bcafea07e72a525e635c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsickoscommittee%2Fstatus%2F1678399640192835589%3Fs%3D4626t%3D3UCTnjiDHVGKqrZ3xwyA_Q
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2023, 10:01:20 AM
Kirby isn't so Smart, he's just lucky
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2023, 10:09:09 AM
Kirby isn't so Smart, he's just lucky
He's like Bob Gibson who only pitched when the opponent was in a batting slump.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2023, 12:42:41 PM
Georgia: agave BBQ wings, The Wing Bar, Atlanta

The best wings in Georgia can be found at The Wing Bar, an Atlanta joint set up by two friends in 2017. Always on point, they’re crunchy on the outside and sauced to perfection, according to satisfied customers. If you’re indecisive, you can go half and half on flavors. But why gamble, when the agave BBQ gets such great reviews?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/recipes/we-ve-found-your-state-s-tastiest-chicken-wings/ss-AA1dqiMM?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=486418f8c7a14e4dab0e4fb3060c9c89&ei=75#image=11 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/recipes/we-ve-found-your-state-s-tastiest-chicken-wings/ss-AA1dqiMM?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=486418f8c7a14e4dab0e4fb3060c9c89&ei=75#image=11)

Iowa: classic bone-in wings, 2 Dogs Pub, Iowa City

Chilled sports bar 2 Dogs Pub serves some of the best bar food in Iowa, including great chicken wings. Choose between boneless or jumbo bone-in, then select from a lengthy list of sauces or dry rubs – signature Buffalo and spicy Firestarter are popular. You can also ask for the wings to be fried extra crispy. You also get to choose from ranch or blue cheese sauce for dipping.

Minnesota: Japanese Sticky wings, Red Cow, Minneapolis

Looking for great wings in Minnesota? Head to funky sports bar Red Cow, which has five outposts in the state. Its Japanese Sticky wings, which are sweet and spicy with a hint of citrus, have been described as the "best ever". You can have them on the bone, or gluten-free and boneless.

Nebraska: Oscar’s Wings, Oscars Pizza & Sports Grille, Omaha

Sports bars aren’t always known for their exceptional food. However, Oscar's was started by three local guys who believe it's just as important as sport and cold beer. The bar's renowned 'char buffed' wings are fried, tossed in sauce, then finished on the grill, so the sauce is baked on. Options range from classics like Buffalo, BBQ, and garlic parmesan to the more adventurous, like Thai chili bourbon. Customers think they're the best wings around.

Ohio: jumbo wings, The Oak Tavern, Cincinnati

If you struggle to pick a sauce flavor, then cozy sports bar The Oak Tavern is the place for you. Their wings are rubbed, slow smoked, and grilled until nicely charred (or deep fried, if you’ve requested that) then served alongside a selection of sauces in squeezy bottles. This means you can try out several different flavors such as Sweet Memphis BBQ, Buffaloak, spicy berry, Jamaican Me Crazy, and Carolina Gold. Perfect for the indecisive.

South Dakota: World Famous Hot Wings, Circus Sports Bar & Grill, Aberdeen

Even if they're not actually known all around the globe, the World Famous Hot Wings from Circus Sports Bar & Grill certainly cause a stir locally. Available in mild, med, hot, Buffalo BBQ, sweet BBQ, and garlic Parmesan, they’re always juicy and crisp. Keep an eye out for their regular offers, too.

Texas: peach habanero battered wings, hiwings, Austin

The battered wings from high-end Korean chicken joint hiwings have been described as life-changing. Crispy and saucy, they’re a textural delight and come with 12 sauce options. Not for the faint hearted, all-time bestseller peach habanero is addictive and seriously hot. It’s also a popular option to choose SOS (sauce on side), if you’re afraid to jump in at the deep end.

Wisconsin: Our Famous Wings, Points East Pub, Milwaukee

By naming their dish Our Famous Wings, Milwaukee's Points East Pub has certainly raised expectations, but these wings do have a seriously great reputation. The restaurant deep fries drums and flats, dips them in sauce, then grills them again so the sauce is baked on rather than wet to the touch. Be sure to also check out the restaurant's impressive beer selection.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2023, 12:57:27 PM
The best wings I've had, ever, anywhere, are here, and it isn't close:

Mukja Korean Fried Chicken - Downtown, Atlanta, GA (mukjaatl.com) (https://mukjaatl.com/)

(They are in midtown.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on July 11, 2023, 12:59:04 PM
Yeah, I don't recall a single TA actually teaching a class at Texas.  They were omnipresent for the labs of course.
During my stay at UT I had no TAs that were actually teaching classes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on July 11, 2023, 01:01:18 PM
He's like Bob Gibson who only pitched when the opponent was in a batting slump.
Most teams went into slumps when facing him

It was said he would throw at his mother if she crowded the plate
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2023, 02:51:35 PM
America's Top States for Business 2023: The full rankings (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/americas-top-states-for-business-2023-the-full-rankings.html)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2023, 03:20:49 PM
America's Top States for Business 2023: The full rankings (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/americas-top-states-for-business-2023-the-full-rankings.html)
so, it's not a RED or Blue thang?!??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2023, 03:31:46 PM
I doubt it's much of anything.  Too many variables including kind of business of course.  Hopefully no one looks at this list and tries to use it seriously.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2023, 03:58:10 PM
hopefully the author understands it's folly
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2023, 09:00:59 PM
Michelin Guide to rate Atlanta restaurants - Rough Draft Atlanta (https://roughdraftatlanta.com/2023/07/11/michelin-guide-to-rate-atlanta-restaurants/?fbclid=IwAR3J82WkHodr71LsQZ_l38TBfhRTUtm-RurjQ6NSq-t2qiDubHJ3iekbomc)

This could be fun ...

Bacchanlia has a shot I think, maybe Gun Show?  I still haven't been there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2023, 09:18:18 PM
CBS Sports releases 2023 College Football Hot Seat Rankings

Tom Allen | Indiana

Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK
Allen first arrived at Indiana as defensive coordinator in 2016 and moved up to head coach in 2017 following Kevin Wilson’s resignation. Since taking over, Allen has amassed a 30-40 overall record and a 14-35 mark in Big Ten play.

The last two seasons have been rough, though. After IU made bowl games in 2019 and 2020, the Hoosiers went 2-10 in 2021 and 4-8 last year. This year is a big one for Allen, who has only two winning records in Big Ten action to his name.

Neal Brown | West Virginia


Danny Gonzales | New Mexico


Dino Babers | Syracuse


Jimbo Fisher | Texas A&M


Butch Jones | Arkansas State


Mike Bloomgren | Rice


2023 Hot Seat: Getting Warm
Michigan State head coach Mel Tucker
Matthew OHaren-USA TODAY Sports
Dodd also listed some coaches whose seats aren’t necessarily “hot,” but are starting to get a warmer entering the season. One of the most notable on the list is Mel Tucker, who signed a lucrative extension at Michigan State after an impressive 2021 season. The Spartans missed out on a bowl game last year, though, and lost two of their top playmakers to the portal this year.

Here’s the full list of coaches whose seats are “getting warmer,” according to CBS Sports.

Jeff Hafley | Boston College
Mel Tucker | Michigan State
Eli Drinkwitz | Missouri
Ryan Silverfield | Memphis
Dana Dimel | UTEP
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 12, 2023, 07:05:50 AM
2023 Hot Seat Rankings: Jimbo Fisher among seven college football coaches with their jobs on the line - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2023-hot-seat-rankings-jimbo-fisher-among-seven-college-football-coaches-with-their-jobs-on-the-line/?fbclid=IwAR3Dvq6Pj1O1_WzxCsSIaE-cOxQhJpNlVZzKxa1ksPkYRhjO4JncM9-wq_w)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 12, 2023, 07:26:20 AM
The best wings I've had, ever, anywhere, are here, and it isn't close:

Mukja Korean Fried Chicken - Downtown, Atlanta, GA (mukjaatl.com) (https://mukjaatl.com/)

(They are in midtown.)
Here:


Sheboygan – Legend Larry's (legendlarrys.com) (https://legendlarrys.com/pages/sheboygan)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 12, 2023, 07:40:27 AM
I doubt I'll be in Sheboygan, ever.  I really can't fathom better wings than at Mukja.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 12, 2023, 09:21:04 AM
I might be there some day to meet a buddy

less than 8 hours away

right through Madison

nice drive
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 12, 2023, 09:39:04 AM
Here:


Sheboygan – Legend Larry's (legendlarrys.com) (https://legendlarrys.com/pages/sheboygan)
SAUCES
D.O.A.
We aren't in the novelties business, and that's why we're so proud of this one. We pair that heat with all of the delicious flavor that our sauces are known for. This one will burn, but unlike many other extra-hots, it'll taste great too!

Scary Larry
This extra hot national award winning wing sauce has great heat without sacrificing its amazing flavor!

Raspberry Habanero
Ripe raspberries and habanero peppers create this delicious, sweet and spicy sauce. It's great on wings, pork, and more!

Hot Garlic
A spicy blend of Asian-inspired flavors make this wing glaze truly one of a kind. It's great for hot wings, stir-fry, as a marinade and more!

Medium
"Hot Wings" may have been invented in Buffalo, NY. but they aren't biased when it comes to pointing out who does it best. This traditional "Buffalo Style" wing sauce has brought many national awards from their namesake and it has a beautiful balance of flavor and heat to prove why.

Spicy Bacon BBQ
This national award winning, spicy, smoky BBQ sauce is great on wings, ribs, pulled pork, and is sure to please any bacon lover!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 12, 2023, 04:15:00 PM
Not *quite* rankings, but seems to fit here...

I Asked AI What Europeans Think Americans From Every Single State Look Like, And The Results Are Just Plain Mean (https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/european-ai-american-list) (https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/european-ai-american-list)

I think I recognize a few of you?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 12, 2023, 07:00:19 PM
Report: Atlanta has lowest homeless rate among American metros | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/report-atl-lowest-homeless-rate-among-american-cities)

The worst cities are about 20x worse than the best according to this.  Vancouver had quite a few that were apparent.

I think a lot of factors are involved beyond affordability of course, but that's one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 12, 2023, 07:05:38 PM
Not *quite* rankings, but seems to fit here...

I Asked AI What Europeans Think Americans From Every Single State Look Like, And The Results Are Just Plain Mean (https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/european-ai-american-list) (https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/european-ai-american-list)

I think I recognize a few of you?
Oh yeah?  Well this is what I think Europeans look like:



(https://i.imgur.com/i0wwUVB.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 12, 2023, 09:14:01 PM
101!!

The 101 Best Burgers in America (thedailymeal.com) (https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/best-burgers-america/)
well, this isn't in America...............


Burger King is causing a stir in Thailand with its new offering: a burger with no meat and a jaw-dropping amount of cheese.

This week, the Thai operator of the fast food chain introduced what it calls the "real cheeseburger," a bun filled with as many as 20 slices of American cheese.


The item launched on Thai menus Sunday, at a reduced price of 109 Thai baht ($3.1), compared with the usual price of 380 baht ($10.9). It quickly went viral on social media in Thailand, with many users on TikTok posting videos of them trying the new sandwich.

"This is no joke. This is for real," Burger King said in a Sunday social media post.

At one Burger King branch in Bangkok on Tuesday, a shift manager was overheard saying the outlet had to stop taking delivery orders so they could have enough stock left for walk-in diners.

One customer who ordered the cheesy treat told CNN she'd tried it for the first time after seeing it on social media.

Im Jeepetch, a 25-year-old IT engineer, said she loved cheese but "this was a bit too much."

"I could only finish half of it," she said, wiping her mouth with a tissue. "This is an insane amount of cheese added into one burger. Food is good when things are at the right combination."

Im added that she would probably not order the gooey fare again next time: "Other burgers are already good. I think I will go back to my double cheese angus as usual."

Another customer echoed that view, calling the cheeseburger "too intense."

"I may not try it again. I like a few slices of cheese in my burger but not this much," said Alisa Chuengviroj, a 26-year-old entrepreneur who sells skincare products online.

Like Im, she said she had visited the store after seeing many people post about the burger online.

The menu addition is an example of how fast-food franchises around the world are seeking to gain traction by rolling out zany or eye-catching menu options that they hope will spread across social media.

In the United States, Burger King has doubled down on the Whopper, a flame-grilled signature beef burger that has also taken off on platforms such as TikTok through a catchy commercial jingle that came out late last year.

Restaurants are also continuously tailoring their offerings to suit local tastes in different countries. In Thailand, cheese is especially popular among young customers, and it is common for the dairy product to be sprinkled on all kinds of dishes.

Burger King's menu in the country also includes salmon katsu burgers, an apparent nod to consumers' preference for a healthy alternative to beef.

The chain is owned in Thailand by Minor International, a local hospitality group that is one of Asia's largest restaurant owners. The company, which also operates outlets for brands including Dairy Queen and Benihana, did not respond to multiple calls from CNN for comment Tuesday.

(https://i.imgur.com/884sAo0.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 13, 2023, 12:54:09 AM
well, this isn't in America...............


Burger King is causing a stir in Thailand with its new offering: a burger with no meat and a jaw-dropping amount of cheese.

This week, the Thai operator of the fast food chain introduced what it calls the "real cheeseburger," a bun filled with as many as 20 slices of American cheese.


The item launched on Thai menus Sunday, at a reduced price of 109 Thai baht ($3.1), compared with the usual price of 380 baht ($10.9). It quickly went viral on social media in Thailand, with many users on TikTok posting videos of them trying the new sandwich.

"This is no joke. This is for real," Burger King said in a Sunday social media post.

At one Burger King branch in Bangkok on Tuesday, a shift manager was overheard saying the outlet had to stop taking delivery orders so they could have enough stock left for walk-in diners.

One customer who ordered the cheesy treat told CNN she'd tried it for the first time after seeing it on social media.

Im Jeepetch, a 25-year-old IT engineer, said she loved cheese but "this was a bit too much."

"I could only finish half of it," she said, wiping her mouth with a tissue. "This is an insane amount of cheese added into one burger. Food is good when things are at the right combination."

Im added that she would probably not order the gooey fare again next time: "Other burgers are already good. I think I will go back to my double cheese angus as usual."

Another customer echoed that view, calling the cheeseburger "too intense."

"I may not try it again. I like a few slices of cheese in my burger but not this much," said Alisa Chuengviroj, a 26-year-old entrepreneur who sells skincare products online.

Like Im, she said she had visited the store after seeing many people post about the burger online.

The menu addition is an example of how fast-food franchises around the world are seeking to gain traction by rolling out zany or eye-catching menu options that they hope will spread across social media.

In the United States, Burger King has doubled down on the Whopper, a flame-grilled signature beef burger that has also taken off on platforms such as TikTok through a catchy commercial jingle that came out late last year.

Restaurants are also continuously tailoring their offerings to suit local tastes in different countries. In Thailand, cheese is especially popular among young customers, and it is common for the dairy product to be sprinkled on all kinds of dishes.

Burger King's menu in the country also includes salmon katsu burgers, an apparent nod to consumers' preference for a healthy alternative to beef.

The chain is owned in Thailand by Minor International, a local hospitality group that is one of Asia's largest restaurant owners. The company, which also operates outlets for brands including Dairy Queen and Benihana, did not respond to multiple calls from CNN for comment Tuesday.

(https://i.imgur.com/884sAo0.png)


No
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on July 13, 2023, 07:04:04 AM
One could hide a lot under all that cheese.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 13, 2023, 07:11:05 AM
Copenhagen had a lot of BKs (and KFCs), it was a bit of a shock at times for me.  We had dinner there once when everything was packed, it was "different".  Our hotel was near some large concert venue and it would get crowded in the area at times.  Overall, the food there was "good" but not ethereal.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 13, 2023, 03:29:26 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mSeBNDf.png)

This of course isn't completely bogus ... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 13, 2023, 07:34:40 PM
No ground meat patty and therefore not a burger.  Just an ungrilled cheese sandwich.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2023, 09:29:06 AM
I checked on the "thrillist" ranking of pizza places around here, they included one spot near us, we tried it once, my wife didn't like it, I thought it was "OK".  There is another place we do like a lot not on the list, they have more "authentic" less greasy pizza.

Grana (granaatl.com) (https://www.granaatl.com/)

Of course our preferences are just that, but some list is just that as well, and every other list I see has mostly different places of course.  My use of such lists, to the extent I bother, is to just see if a place looks interesting and we might try it someday.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2023, 09:56:57 AM
No ground meat patty and therefore not a burger.  Just an ungrilled cheese sandwich.
Not even a Cheesehead would eat that trash.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2023, 11:45:31 AM
I comment to my French friends that the motto of the US is "If some is good, more is better."  I think this applies to wines, beers, burgers, houses, trucks, dams, buildings, just about anything.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 16, 2023, 12:12:38 PM
National Championships.......
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 16, 2023, 01:34:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mSeBNDf.png)

This of course isn't completely bogus ...
Cool, we only play of these, including 6 of the top 18.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 16, 2023, 01:34:45 PM
I comment to my French friends that the motto of the US is "If some is good, more is better."  I think this applies to wines, beers, burgers, houses, trucks, dams, buildings, just about anything.
It most definitely does NOT apply to American cheese.
Is there a worse cheese?
It's nothingness.
People who make grilled cheese with American cheese just hate themselves.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 16, 2023, 09:39:57 PM
I comment to my French friends that the motto of the US is "If some is good, more is better."  I think this applies to wines, beers, burgers, houses, trucks, dams, buildings, just about anything.
texas
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 16, 2023, 10:05:00 PM
texas
fight
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 16, 2023, 10:10:11 PM
even the fight is bigger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 17, 2023, 08:22:37 AM
11 Burger Chains with the Highest Quality Meat in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/11-burger-chains-with-the-highest-quality-meat-in-america/ss-AA192Kxo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d262742150fd4381af31bf43bec65d90&ei=12#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 17, 2023, 08:39:48 AM
Fuddruckers and In&out I'm familiar with

Culvers is the only one within 90 miles

Haven't been to Culvers in 20 years - since my daughters were young
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 17, 2023, 10:32:35 AM
247Sports' Preseason All-SEC coaching staff (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/SEC-football-best-coaches-by-position-2023-247Sports-Matrix-Analytical-Solutions-Coach-Rating-index-212783936/?fbclid=IwAR2blz4IxkrtgSY6LfgTm_McqdCwEsvt524R3NMFBi7bYTqJopGIdjtiPoI)

I don't really get it, ranking position coaches etc.  Folks rank HCs basically in terms of winning (duh).  Saban has won at two places, Meyer won at 4 or 5.  I see that as a real thing.  But put any of these great coaches at say Kansas State and see how they fare?  The current KSU coach might be the best of the lot?

How about a guy who is impressive at "Boise State" and moves somewhere else and is mediocre?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 17, 2023, 10:35:10 AM
247Sports' Preseason All-SEC coaching staff (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/SEC-football-best-coaches-by-position-2023-247Sports-Matrix-Analytical-Solutions-Coach-Rating-index-212783936/?fbclid=IwAR2blz4IxkrtgSY6LfgTm_McqdCwEsvt524R3NMFBi7bYTqJopGIdjtiPoI)

I don't really get it, ranking position coaches etc.  Folks rank HCs basically in terms of winning (duh).  Saban has won at two places, Meyer won at 4 or 5.  I see that as a real thing.  But put any of these great coaches at say Kansas State and see how they fare?  The current KSU coach might be the best of the lot?

How about a guy who is impressive at "Boise State" and moves somewhere else and is mediocre?
Like all of them?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 17, 2023, 10:50:30 AM
247Sports' Preseason All-SEC coaching staff (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/SEC-football-best-coaches-by-position-2023-247Sports-Matrix-Analytical-Solutions-Coach-Rating-index-212783936/?fbclid=IwAR2blz4IxkrtgSY6LfgTm_McqdCwEsvt524R3NMFBi7bYTqJopGIdjtiPoI)

I don't really get it, ranking position coaches etc.  Folks rank HCs basically in terms of winning (duh).  Saban has won at two places, Meyer won at 4 or 5.  I see that as a real thing.  But put any of these great coaches at say Kansas State and see how they fare?  The current KSU coach might be the best of the lot?

How about a guy who is impressive at "Boise State" and moves somewhere else and is mediocre?
From the article, it looks like they've got something akin to a WAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement) model. Quantify various stats important to performance for a specific coaches "unit", whether that's DBs, the offense as a whole, or the entire team if HC. 

I.e. for DBs it might be passes defended, opposing QB completion percentage, interceptions, etc. For an OC it might be yards per play, points scored, other stats, etc. 

Factor in the talent level that the coach is working with, likely based purely on recruiting rankings. That allows you to see what coaches have units "overperforming" their talent level vs "underperforming".

Compare performance from unit to unit while normalizing based on talent, and you have a ranking. 

Is any of it really valid or true? Who knows? But it seems like what they're doing is objective and quantifiable, so it's a lot more than just an eye test. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 17, 2023, 11:18:40 AM
Fuddruckers and In&out I'm familiar with

Culvers is the only one within 90 miles

Haven't been to Culvers in 20 years - since my daughters were young
From that list, I've been to Shake Shack, Culver's, In N Out, and Fuddruckers.  The first 3 are fine for fast food burgers, but the only one I'd call out as having noticeably better meat, is Fuddruckers.  That was a darn fine chain, but more of a fast casual sit down place, than true fast food like the other three.  So it's pretty much apples and oranges.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 17, 2023, 11:52:13 AM
Is any of it really valid or true? Who knows? But it seems like what they're doing is objective and quantifiable, so it's a lot more than just an eye test.
That could be of course, but the assistants, if they do well, seem to move (up) and not stay very long at a place.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 17, 2023, 12:03:56 PM
That could be of course, but the assistants, if they do well, seem to move (up) and not stay very long at a place.
In the article they do state that a coach must have at least 4 seasons coaching that specific unit to be graded. Not 4 years at the same school, mind you, just 4 years at that position. 

I think you're overstating the degree to which coaches "move up". There are a lot fewer OC jobs available than OL/WR/RB/QB jobs. There are half as many HC jobs as OC/DC jobs combined. While there are a lot of notable coaches that "move up", there are also a lot of HCs who simply move from school to school in the same position, a lot of OC/DCs who just move from school to school in the same position, and a lot of position unit coaches who simply move from school to school in the same position. I'm guessing the "move up" coaches are the outliers, not the "stay doing the same thing" coaches. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 17, 2023, 12:19:53 PM
You probably are right, there also are HCs who step back to being OC/DCs, UGA has two of them now.   I recall some years when half the SEC had first year coaches, or so it seemed.  Then many get fired in 3-4-5 years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 17, 2023, 12:50:21 PM
From 20 to 1: Ranking the best players in the SEC (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/sec-football-2023-best-players-top-20-brock-bowers-harold-perkin-212799166/#2196339)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 17, 2023, 04:44:41 PM
idk where else to put this, but you can committ 200+ violations, including 18 majors, without a bowl ban.

So just go to town, I guess.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 17, 2023, 08:18:26 PM
If you were seated here decades ago in Cincinnati Ohio, you would consider yourself as having it made or at least for that evening you did. The corner table in the Maisonette Restaurant and the best food ever cooked.

(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/359816418_836325184521021_7778114981934962211_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=x1mQlLRVRQwAX-YfYBN&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDk6zVwu67jD2aQjLV1DQiXv-BDH6-tZk9AiZQyqsOMWg&oe=64BA63E8)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 17, 2023, 08:25:31 PM
14 Best BBQ Restaurants In The U.S.

1. C.H.O.P. Clay’s House Of Pig (Winner)
Tupelo, Mississippi
Winner, winner, barbecue dinner! Located in Tupelo, Mississippi, Clay’s House Of Pig, aka C.H.O.P., has earned a well-deserved reputation for serving up some of the most delicious barbecue in the region, and our readers say it’s the best in the U.S.! With a focus on slow-cooked, tender meats and a variety of homemade sauces, this family-owned establishment has become a favorite among locals, visitors, and TravelAwaits readers.

What To Order
Whether on a potato or nachos, or in a sandwich or quesadilla, you can’t go wrong with the brisket.

2. Black’s Barbecue
New Braunfels, Texas
For over 85 years, Black’s Barbecue has been serving up traditional Texas barbecue at its finest. With four Texas Hill Country locations, this legendary establishment prides itself on its pit-smoked meats, including succulent brisket and juicy sausages, all accompanied by classic sides and a friendly, welcoming atmosphere.

3. Joe’s Kansas City Bar-B-Que
Kansas City, Kansas
Don’t let its neighborhood corner gas station locale fool you. Joe’s Kansas City Bar-B-Que is a must-visit destination for barbecue enthusiasts. Formerly known as Oklahoma Joe’s, this iconic spot now has three outposts in Kansas City. Mouthwatering burnt ends, succulent ribs, and flavorful sauces have earned Joe’s numerous accolades and a devoted following.

4. Franklin Barbecue
Austin, Texas
When it comes to barbecue, Franklin Barbecue in Austin, Texas, is the mecca. This nationally acclaimed establishment has garnered widespread recognition for its perfectly smoked meats; particularly the melt-in-your-mouth brisket.

5. Arthur Bryant’s Barbeque
Kansas City, Missouri
A Kansas City institution, Arthur Bryant’s Barbeque is known for its iconic burnt ends and tangy sauce. This no-frills counter-service joint has been serving up exceptional old-school pit-cooked barbecue for decades. Although the King of Ribs has left the building, this historic restaurant continues to delight locals and tourists with its mouthwatering offerings that are slow-smoked over a combo of oak and hickory woods.

6. The Bar-B-Q Shop
Memphis, Tennessee
A beloved gem in a city renowned for its barbecue, The Bar-B-Q Shop is famous for its award-winning Dancing Pigs sauce, tender ribs, and succulent pulled pork. This family-owned establishment showcases the authentic flavors that make Memphis barbecue truly special.

7. Pappy’s Smokehouse
St. Louis, Missouri
Pappy’s Smokehouse in St. Louis’s Midtown has gained a loyal following thanks to its expertly smoked meats and delectable flavors. From their renowned dry-rubbed ribs to the flavorful pulled pork, Pappy’s delivers barbecue perfection with every bite, earning it a spot among the best in the nation.

8. Central BBQ
Memphis, Tennessee
Central BBQ has become synonymous with exceptional barbecue in the hardwood capital that is Memphis. The motto, “Smoke is Our Sauce,” refers to the hickory and pecan woods that produce mouthwatering ribs and pulled pork, but there are a variety of homemade sauces available as well! The real rub is in Central BBQ’s smoky, spicy signature rub that tantalizes the taste buds and keeps our readers coming back for more.

9. Charlie Vergos’ Rendezvous
Memphis, Tennessee
Located in downtown Memphis, Tennessee, The Rendezvous is a true barbecue institution. Since 1948, this iconic restaurant has been serving up its signature dry-rubbed ribs, cooked to perfection over charcoal. The unique blend of spices creates a flavor profile that is both robust and unforgettable, making it a must-visit destination for barbecue enthusiasts.

10. Cackle & Oink BBQ
Sherman, Texas
Located in Sherman, Texas, between Dallas and the Oklahoma border, Cackle & Oink BBQ is a hidden gem that consistently delivers exceptional barbecue. With a focus on quality ingredients and time-honored smoking techniques, this family-owned establishment offers a delectable array of meats, including tender-sliced brisket, juicy pork ribs, and flavorful jalapeño sausage, all complemented by their mouthwatering homemade sauces.

11. The Notorious P.I.G.
Missoula, Montana
In the unlikely location of Missoula, Montana, you’ll find the Notorious P.I.G., a barbecue joint that surprises and delights with its authentic flavors. Passionate, dedicated pitmasters combine traditional smoking methods and locally sourced ingredients to create inventive and rich barbecue dishes. Sauces range from sweet and hot-tomato-based to a North Carolina hot vinegar sauce.

12. ZZQ Texas Craft Barbeque
Richmond, Virginia
Despite being located far from the Lone Star State, ZZQ Texas Craft Barbeque in Richmond, Virginia, has mastered the art of Texas-style barbecue. Using sustainably raised meats and time-honored techniques, this unique establishment serves up mouthwatering brisket, sausage, and ribs, all cooked low and slow for that perfect smoky flavor.

13. The Salt Lick
Driftwood, Texas
Nestled in the Texas Hill Country outside of Austin, Salt Lick is a true barbecue destination. Surrounded by oak trees, this legendary establishment offers an authentic family-style Texas barbecue experience. Feast on famous pit-smoked meats, such as succulent beef ribs and mouthwatering sausage, while enjoying the warm and inviting indoor/outdoor picnic-style atmosphere.

14. Big Bob Gibson Bar-B-Q
Decatur, Alabama
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 18, 2023, 06:08:56 AM
14. Big Bob Gibson Bar-B-Q

Decatur, Alabama

We had dinner there, once, I found it to be mediocre indeed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on July 18, 2023, 06:53:45 AM
All these top lists of place I've never eaten at almost makes me feel like I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 18, 2023, 07:31:42 AM
I think that is part of the point, aside from getting clicks.  The old airline magazines would have "Top Ten Doctors of X in the US" which were just commercials.

If I wrote for some mag and some place offered me $1,000 to add their place to a list, I would do it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2023, 07:38:58 AM
idk where else to put this, but you can committ 200+ violations, including 18 majors, without a bowl ban.

So just go to town, I guess.
Tennessee Tech better look out. The NCAA is coming!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2023, 07:43:08 AM
I think that is part of the point, aside from getting clicks.  The old airline magazines would have "Top Ten Doctors of X in the US" which were just commercials.

If I wrote for some mag and some place offered me $1,000 to add their place to a list, I would do it.
ya think ya know a guy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2023, 02:36:31 PM
PERIOD!!

We've Found Your State's Tastiest Cheeseburger, Period (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/we-ve-found-your-state-s-tastiest-cheeseburger-period/ss-AA1e1XDX?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=75930ea9cc014f7598a8880974579c17&ei=6)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2023, 02:48:20 PM
Georgia: The Tower Of Power, The Companion, Atlanta

Iowa: The Dominie, DutchFix, Pella - (never heard of it)

Minnesota: Parlour burger, Parlour Bar, Minneapolis

Nebraska: The Original, Cheeseburgers, Omaha - (never heard of it)

Ohio: The Classic, Preston’s, Columbus

South Dakota: The Classic, Black Hills Burger & Bun Co., Custer - (never heard of it)

Texas: BBQ Burger, Tookie’s Burgers, Kemah

Wisconsin: Juicy Lucy, 11:11 Burgers & Beignets, Fond Du Lac


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 18, 2023, 03:57:38 PM
I think I may be too negative about lists ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2023, 03:59:15 PM
would you care to rank the lists according to negativity?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 18, 2023, 04:01:09 PM
Nope, I've made enough fun of them, but as noted, some I funned on have a shred at least of validity.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 18, 2023, 04:08:49 PM
Wait Wisconsin stole the Jucy Lucy from Minnesota?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 18, 2023, 05:24:33 PM
These are America's best states for infrastructure (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/these-are-americas-best-states-for-infrastructure.html)

With so many ties, they list about 16 states in their top ten... but it's not only the Dawgs at the top apparently ...

 Georgia

How big and vital is Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport? In 2015, it became the first airport in the world to surpass 100 million passengers in one year. Traffic peaked at a record 110 million passengers in 2019. The pandemic changed everything the following year, but ATL is soaring back. Traffic rose 24% last year from 2021 levels to 94 million passengers, easily qualifying the airport as the world’s busiest. The infrastructure law has already sent Georgia (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/top-states-for-business-georgia.html) more than $302 million for its airports to help manage all that growth. After you arrive in the Peach State, you will find plenty of room to thrive. Office space and vacant sites are abundant. And roads and bridges are in good shape in America’s most solid state.

2023 Infrastructure score: 274 out of 390 points (Top States grade: A+)
U.S. population within 500 miles: 79,385,978
Bridges in poor condition: 2%
Roads in unacceptable condition: 6%
Broadband access: 93%
Power outages per year: 2.4 hours



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2023, 05:52:08 PM
Broadband access: 93%

Seems high, but it's impressive

I can help with the last 7%

I have fiber optic cable in stock
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 20, 2023, 12:01:44 PM
Atlanta named among Top 25 most educated cities in the country – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/atlanta-named-among-top-25-most-educated-cities-country/XRUD7CBESRHA3FPTUJMJMQVM7M/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2023, 10:29:05 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/360146922_805549954333419_4917341845753319691_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=PGHctSCfgW4AX-OKUE9&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDXtSK0Crls4gVaQXa8RBkHkPt--nuFEdAU7pQXKyT88Q&oe=64BEE7E6)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2023, 08:00:22 AM
Not a ranking, but yet another conference rearrangement imagining for no reason but clicks:

(https://i.imgur.com/YJroARf.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 08:33:34 AM
I'd rather imagine (2) 12-team conferences
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2023, 08:34:48 AM
Me as well, 12 is a solid number I think.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 08:38:58 AM
I'd much rather 10 with a round robin 9-game sched
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2023, 08:43:04 AM
I liked how 12 worked, one had a decent chance of winning the conference.  But, the two Bigs won't be going back to that any more than the playoff scheme will shrink.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 21, 2023, 08:52:39 AM
10 with a roundrobin is great.

Memories
Light the corners of my mind
Misty watercolor memories
Of the way we were
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 08:59:22 AM
I think when the B1G and SEC get to 20, someone might, just might, float the crazy idea of (2) 10-team divisions with round robins with the two champs meeting post season for the conference title

the idea will obviously be shot down by F-ing morons
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 21, 2023, 09:10:04 AM
I think when the B1G and SEC get to 20, someone might, just might, float the crazy idea of (2) 10-team divisions with round robins with the two champs meeting post season for the conference title

the idea will obviously be shot down by F-ing morons
For me it would depend on the other 9 teams.  I'd assume Texas, OU, Arkansas, and A&M would probably all be in the same 10-team sub-conference, but beyond that if we got stuck with the Mississippis and Kentucky and South Carolina or something, I'd pretty much hate it.  If that's the option, then I'd much rather rotate and occasionally get Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee on the schedule.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2023, 09:22:38 AM
I gather we all suspect the two conferences will continue to grow over time to a something.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 09:30:30 AM
For me it would depend on the other 9 teams.  I'd assume Texas, OU, Arkansas, and A&M would probably all be in the same 10-team sub-conference, but beyond that if we got stuck with the Mississippis and Kentucky and South Carolina or something, I'd pretty much hate it.  If that's the option, then I'd much rather rotate and occasionally get Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee on the schedule.
getting stuck with the mississippis and Kentucky any worse than getting stuck with a couple teams in kansas and Iowa St?

or TCU, SMU, & West Virginny?

I'm trying to save the sport here!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 21, 2023, 09:46:57 AM
getting stuck with the mississippis and Kentucky any worse than getting stuck with a couple teams in kansas and Iowa St?

or TCU, SMU, & West Virginny?

I'm trying to save the sport here!
That ship has already sailed.

So speaking only of a go-forward plan, I'd rather rotate teams through a 20-team conference and see every other team every 2-3 years, then get stuck with lame ones like the Mississippis and Kentucky and SoCar and Vandy every single year.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 10:00:38 AM
https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 11:17:06 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/359834922_3697285887168049_8700583053643898725_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=JYwWQpNccTsAX8S26Qv&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBOKuOV2ymEAWCGfJ3y5qvpOit2bdsa88AdTcQYvl95zw&oe=64BF1AE2)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 21, 2023, 11:32:02 AM
Rank the teams most likely to trade for Ohtani.

1. Dodgers
2. Everyone else.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 21, 2023, 11:41:35 AM
The MLB=rat's ass thread is over there -------------->
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2023, 11:58:37 AM
my post was regarding in&out burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 21, 2023, 12:01:45 PM
my post was regarding in&out burger
The thread for exceedingly average fast food burgers is... oh wait, this is it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2023, 12:16:11 PM
I will conform.

13 Best Fast-Food Burgers, According to Chefs (eatthis.com) (https://www.eatthis.com/best-fast-food-burgers-chefs/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 21, 2023, 03:56:40 PM
I will conform.

13 Best Fast-Food Burgers, According to Chefs (eatthis.com) (https://www.eatthis.com/best-fast-food-burgers-chefs/)
Not gonna lie, having In&Out on that list 3 times is something I can't argue with. 

However, that's not a ranking of best burgers. It's asking 13 random chef's what burger they like. Including the late, great, Anthony Bourdain (PBUH), who clearly was not consulted recently. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2023, 04:09:18 PM
My fav is a Whopper at BK among the lower cost chains.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 21, 2023, 05:19:29 PM
I've not once been told a burger chain is great, bitten into that burger, and thought "damn, that's a good burger."
Not In-n-Out, not Whataburger, not 5 Guys, not Culvers, not anywhere.
.
And yeah Cincy, a Whopper is about as good as it gets.  It's not tiny, has fixins, and I like the ketchup/mayo mix.  
But let's say In-n-Out is like 4% better that whatever.  The drive-thru is always full.  That 4% isn't worth sitting in a line for 27 or 13 or 8 or 18 minutes longer wait.  
It's just not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 21, 2023, 05:26:35 PM
I've not once been told a burger chain is great, bitten into that burger, and thought "damn, that's a good burger."
Not In-n-Out, not Whataburger, not 5 Guys, not Culvers, not anywhere.
.
So out of curiosity, what *is* a good burger to you? 

Especially if you're not impressed with Five Guys, which isn't similar to the others in that it's not a fast food burger. 

Does it need to be a bigger steakhouse-style burger for you?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 21, 2023, 08:50:02 PM
I've not once been told a burger chain is great, bitten into that burger, and thought "damn, that's a good burger."
Not In-n-Out, not Whataburger, not 5 Guys, not Culvers, not anywhere.
.
And yeah Cincy, a Whopper is about as good as it gets.  It's not tiny, has fixins, and I like the ketchup/mayo mix. 
But let's say In-n-Out is like 4% better that whatever.  The drive-thru is always full.  That 4% isn't worth sitting in a line for 27 or 13 or 8 or 18 minutes longer wait. 
It's just not.
Maybe you just don't like burgers?

I was surprised to see BK and MCdonald's on there. The difference between a burger cooked to order and one that isn't is pretty stark. It's like the McRib verses, uh, ribs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 21, 2023, 09:07:33 PM
So out of curiosity, what *is* a good burger to you?

Especially if you're not impressed with Five Guys, which isn't similar to the others in that it's not a fast food burger.

Does it need to be a bigger steakhouse-style burger for you?

All the burgers in question are fine.  The issue is someone saying one of them is appreciably better than the others.  Sorry, when it's like a 6 oz burger, it has a ceiling.  So yeah, a nice meaty steakhouse-style burger is better, obviously, but that's not what they're selling.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 21, 2023, 09:52:39 PM
All the burgers in question are fine.  The issue is someone saying one of them is appreciably better than the others.  Sorry, when it's like a 6 oz burger, it has a ceiling.  So yeah, a nice meaty steakhouse-style burger is better, obviously, but that's not what they're selling.

Gotta disagree strongly here. A steakhouse burger is bigger, but in no universe is it obviously better. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 21, 2023, 10:38:10 PM
If the guy back there can cook a steak, idk how they'd mess up a burger.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 07:00:01 AM
Everyone has personal preferences of course.  It's not that hard to rank them yourself, aside from chains outside your area.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 22, 2023, 08:49:43 AM
What's the bottom ten fast food burgers? 

worst to first




I dunno, I kinda like all the others. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 22, 2023, 08:56:41 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1lj2M2aYAMb-j9?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 09:29:52 AM
I eat a burger when we're traveling or when we're in a hurry for some reason (which is rare) or my wife wants to go to Farm Burger or Killer Burger.  My "thing" is I can fix a nice burger at home easily and cheaply, it's not a thing difficult to prepare.

It's also good to order if you find yourself in a strange restaurant, they usually can make a decent one.

We went to Grana the other day and ordered two pizzas which were quite good, it was happy hour so they were $10 each.  Oddly they said one of their wood burning stoves was out.  With pizza, I think heat is heat, the wood part is for show.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 10:16:19 AM
21 cities with the lowest credit scores | National Mortgage News (https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/list/21-cities-with-the-lowest-credit-scores?utm_source=audiencedev&utm_medium=social&utm_content=AllProspects&utm_campaign=facebook-keywee&kwp_0=2284841&kwp_4=6453578&kwp_1=2766570&fbclid=IwAR3gtJkfBw-oGeb-xkGd0K5njMJuyDDg81p0cx2LusUrfy6GEozZ0R6QLpM)

North Port was on the list, South Bend is #1 (lowest) at 448.  

My guess is the average of posters here is in the high 700 range.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 22, 2023, 10:19:50 AM
826.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 22, 2023, 10:46:09 AM
Two Wisconsin players. Wisconsin mentioned 4 times.

(https://i.imgur.com/0guspA8.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 22, 2023, 12:42:53 PM
Yeesh. Feast or famine. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 22, 2023, 12:50:48 PM
What's the bottom ten fast food burgers?

worst to first


  • Krystal (White Castle knockoff)
  • White Castle
  • Rally's/Checkers (used to be among the best)
  • Burger King
  • McDonald's
  • Jack in the Box
  • Hardee's/Karl's Jr


I dunno, I kinda like all the others.
Kyrstal and WC are 85% bread, so the quality of the rest is irrelevant.
I only go to Rally's for nostalgic reasons (we'd have Checkerburgers during 2-a-days back in HS).
BK and McD are fine.
I don't eat at Jack or Carl's Jr.  Jack has a huge, diverse menu and doens't do anything well.  I got a chicken sandwich there, and it was worse than taking a freezer chicken patty and microwaving it.  The last burger I got at Carl's Jr, I only ate 2/3 of.  I haven't been to either chain in years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 22, 2023, 01:15:23 PM

We went to Grana the other day and ordered two pizzas which were quite good, it was happy hour so they were $10 each.  Oddly they said one of their wood burning stoves was out.  With pizza, I think heat is heat, the wood part is for show.
Wood might be just for show, but cooking surface makes a difference on pizza re: crust consistency. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 01:29:30 PM
Their pizzas are very good, we've ordered a few other items there but generally just go for pizza.  They have a nice rooftop bar/dining area also, though the view isn't all that great.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 22, 2023, 01:59:09 PM
I like Red Robin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2023, 02:34:08 PM
I like Red Robin.
I used to, but the last two times I've been there, in two different locations, it was REALLY underwhelming. Granted, that was pre-pandemic, so maybe those were outliers and they're better now. But I found it to be a rather bland and weak patty, and everything else was just general "shitty chain restaurant" quality as well. 

Which might be fine if Applebee's or TGI Fridays serves a weak burger, but Red Robin is a burger restaurant. I'd hope they could even get that right, but they failed. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 02:36:21 PM
Who has the best breakfasts (chains)?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2023, 02:42:14 PM
Might go to the place that has this on the menu for my birthday...

(https://i.imgur.com/ltTLXw9.jpg)

Pretty sure that'd satisfy @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) lol...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 22, 2023, 03:19:55 PM
Who has the best breakfasts (chains)?




(https://img.ifunny.co/images/1866f62dd18b8aaafa3db1ac1ffd6a709416f85e7012ca23751dc915b7f8e32e_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2023, 03:27:24 PM
I can cook eggs, bacon, and toast really inexpensively

Not a chain but Tina's cafe in Lincoln is the best breakfast I've had

outstanding sausage gravy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2023, 03:28:22 PM
What's the bottom ten fast food burgers?

worst to first


  • Krystal (White Castle knockoff)
  • White Castle
  • Rally's/Checkers (used to be among the best)
  • Burger King
  • McDonald's
  • Jack in the Box
  • Hardee's/Karl's Jr


I dunno, I kinda like all the others.
I won't eat at any of them, not in&out either
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2023, 04:50:08 PM
I understand why they have these conference shindigs, and such "rankings" are OK with me I guess, but they don't seem to have a great predictive power in my experience.  

(https://i.imgur.com/qC5E7NS.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 22, 2023, 05:48:21 PM
I understand why they have these conference shindigs, and such "rankings" are OK with me I guess, but they don't seem to have a great predictive power in my experience. 

(https://i.imgur.com/qC5E7NS.png)
That only matters if you go back and see how you did.  Too busy making "way too early top 25" for the next year to do that!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 22, 2023, 05:55:25 PM
Burgers: There’s a 90 percent chance you could be eating something better
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 22, 2023, 07:07:28 PM
Burgers: There’s a 90 percent chance you could be eating something better
You need to eat better burgers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 23, 2023, 07:55:59 AM
I used to, but the last two times I've been there, in two different locations, it was REALLY underwhelming. Granted, that was pre-pandemic, so maybe those were outliers and they're better now. But I found it to be a rather bland and weak patty, and everything else was just general "shitty chain restaurant" quality as well.

Which might be fine if Applebee's or TGI Fridays serves a weak burger, but Red Robin is a burger restaurant. I'd hope they could even get that right, but they failed.
It's been probably 4-5 years since I've been there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 23, 2023, 07:57:02 AM
Who has the best breakfasts (chains)?


Any place that will serve me a burger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 23, 2023, 07:59:02 AM




Guess what these rankings are?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 08:12:51 AM
It's been probably 4-5 years since I've been there.
I was at Red Robin last week for my free bday burger.  Blue Ribbon burger
Was pretty good and bottomless sweet potato fries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 08:17:43 AM
They are all in NATO, but that doesn't relate to their military spending.  I would guess best food, except for Germany being so high.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 23, 2023, 08:26:56 AM
They are all in NATO, but that doesn't relate to their military spending.  I would guess best food, except for Germany being so high.
Most pickpocketing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 08:28:46 AM
NYC not on the list?

lost art
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 23, 2023, 08:37:26 AM
It was for Europe only.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 09:12:32 AM
I know Paris is really bad about PP.  I generally put a wallet in my back pocket full of paper, and carry a slim wallet in my front pocket with a loose credit card to pay for whatever, so I don't ever expose anything.  If you're out of the main tourist areas you usually will be OK.  If you notice a young gypsie looking girl approaching you, asking questions of any sort, or someone asks if you speak English, do not respond, walk the other way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 09:40:17 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/360136831_736594808475896_7002423447627867966_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=UG_ULyW00_oAX9CHZxC&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCDm3QaeeAqmZ8OTe73lexuM48iQpkVcuvvi73Ulgogzw&oe=64C1D8E9)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 09:49:43 AM
That at least is a quantative metric (aside from wins being set aside).

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 10:38:01 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/MTOjQuT.png)

All I want is A-> B safely and in manageable discomfort.  It's funny to me to glance at the prices for "Delta One" to Europe, $4800 from here to Paris in August.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 03:30:11 PM
A place called Holmann and Finch opened near us a few months back, we tried them today for lunch, the menu is a bit odd, to me.  Anyway, they had a cheeseburger and fries, but $24.  The fries were good, the burger was large and "OK", my wife said she prefers Farmburger where a beer and nice burger will run you $11. fries an extra something.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 23, 2023, 03:35:50 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/360136831_736594808475896_7002423447627867966_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=UG_ULyW00_oAX9CHZxC&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCDm3QaeeAqmZ8OTe73lexuM48iQpkVcuvvi73Ulgogzw&oe=64C1D8E9)
Boise should not be on these lists.  342 games all-time, compared to 1000+ for everyone else.  Not to mention the scheduling disparity.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 23, 2023, 05:31:17 PM
Boise should not be on these lists.  342 games all-time, compared to 1000+ for everyone else.  Not to mention the scheduling disparity.
This response is deeply amusing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 23, 2023, 05:50:41 PM
I dunno there should be a caveat,oh I thought he was talking about ND 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 23, 2023, 06:52:41 PM
This response is deeply amusing.
Why?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2023, 06:55:35 PM
How do you rank Fro's rants in this thread? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2023, 06:59:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzvoMBsXwAAvfvw?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2023, 07:00:37 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fi-6eSOWYAQPV7T?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 07:02:32 PM
Is that from last year?  The Dawgs start off with a bunch of pastries.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2023, 07:02:44 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1V8QYiWwAAQiHI?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 07:50:22 PM
How do you rank Fro's rants in this thread?
pot stirring
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 23, 2023, 08:12:24 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fi-6eSOWYAQPV7T?format=jpg&name=small)
The photos for 4 and 6 are reversed.  Good job, Barstool!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 09:07:28 PM
The Worst States Driving The Climate Crisis

5. Mississippi
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 21.0 metric tons (16th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +2.0% (11th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 15.6 MWh (10th highest)
> Electricity production: 10.0% from renewable sources (18th lowest)
> Recycling rate: 17% (2nd lowest)

4. Arkansas
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 21.5 metric tons (15th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +10.2% (5th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 15.2 MWh (11th highest)
> Electricity production: 10.5% from renewable sources (20th lowest)
> Recycling rate: 28% (9th lowest)

3. Louisiana
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 41.8 metric tons (5th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +5.0% (7th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 19.1 MWh (3rd highest)
> Electricity production: 3.3% from renewable sources (3rd lowest)
> Recycling rate: 26% (6th lowest)


2. North Dakota
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 74.8 metric tons (2nd highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: -1.3% (32nd largest decline)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 28.7 MWh (the highest)
> Electricity production: 38.1% from renewable sources (12th highest)
> Recycling rate: 33% (17th lowest)


1. Wyoming
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 101.9 metric tons (the highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: -7.8% (7th largest decline)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 26.4 MWh (2nd highest)
> Electricity production: 16.1% from renewable sources (23rd highest)
> Recycling rate: 33% (17th lowest)



https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/15/the-worst-states-driving-the-climate-crisis/11/ (https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/15/the-worst-states-driving-the-climate-crisis/11/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 23, 2023, 09:14:00 PM
All the scholarly ones, I see.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on July 23, 2023, 09:19:15 PM
The Worst States Driving The Climate Crisis

5. Mississippi
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 21.0 metric tons (16th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +2.0% (11th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 15.6 MWh (10th highest)
> Electricity production: 10.0% from renewable sources (18th lowest)
> Recycling rate: 17% (2nd lowest)

4. Arkansas
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 21.5 metric tons (15th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +10.2% (5th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 15.2 MWh (11th highest)
> Electricity production: 10.5% from renewable sources (20th lowest)
> Recycling rate: 28% (9th lowest)

3. Louisiana
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 41.8 metric tons (5th highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: +5.0% (7th largest increase)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 19.1 MWh (3rd highest)
> Electricity production: 3.3% from renewable sources (3rd lowest)
> Recycling rate: 26% (6th lowest)


2. North Dakota
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 74.8 metric tons (2nd highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: -1.3% (32nd largest decline)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 28.7 MWh (the highest)
> Electricity production: 38.1% from renewable sources (12th highest)
> Recycling rate: 33% (17th lowest)


1. Wyoming
> Annual per capita carbon emissions: 101.9 metric tons (the highest)
> 5-yr. change in total carbon emissions: -7.8% (7th largest decline)
> Total annual per capita electricity consumption: 26.4 MWh (2nd highest)
> Electricity production: 16.1% from renewable sources (23rd highest)
> Recycling rate: 33% (17th lowest)



https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/15/the-worst-states-driving-the-climate-crisis/11/ (https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/09/15/the-worst-states-driving-the-climate-crisis/11/)
Now do China and India.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 09:23:58 PM
or Russia and Saudi?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 23, 2023, 09:27:38 PM
All the scholarly ones, I see.
Basically energy producers, Wyoming is by far the largest coal producer.  ND, shale oil, LA refineries...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2023, 09:45:35 PM
scholarly???

like what states?

Florida or Arizona or Oklahoma or Nebraska?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2023, 06:36:59 AM
It has nohing to do with scholarship at all of course ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2023, 07:32:27 AM
ts.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-footballs-richest-recruiting-states-ranked-213112055/#2199800

The surprise to me is seeing Virginia in the top group.  Texas and Florida lead.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 24, 2023, 08:47:07 AM
A couple of glaring omissions. 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1wvJ1kXwAAsK-8?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 24, 2023, 09:26:07 AM
Why?
Because it’s basically standings for teams currently in FBS. It’s dry and not notable. 
 
And being triggered by standings to demand the particular sort of segregation you can’t let go of is funny to me. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 24, 2023, 10:20:05 AM
Damn Texas @ Bama in week 2 that'll grab some clicks.

(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fb7dFlsG.gif&hash=cc7f6d5e7a0bab84ec0f60c5a54e0a47)
Longhorns - Welcome Back.......but not too much. Be nice to kick the walker out from under Nick
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 24, 2023, 01:52:39 PM
Damn Texas @ Bama in week 2 that'll grab some clicks.

Longhorns - Welcome Back.......but not too much. Be nice to kick the walker out from under Nick
Would love to win in Tuscaloosa.  Horns held their own in Austin last year, we'll see how it goes this time around.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on July 24, 2023, 03:48:39 PM
Would love to win in Tuscaloosa.  Horns held their own in Austin last year, we'll see how it goes this time around.
Hope we dont have the same refs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 24, 2023, 03:58:51 PM
Hope we dont have the same refs
Same here.  Those were B12 refs, I'd much rather use SEC refs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 24, 2023, 10:48:54 PM
especially this season
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 24, 2023, 10:55:52 PM
Because it’s basically standings for teams currently in FBS. It’s dry and not notable.
 
And being triggered by standings to demand the particular sort of segregation you can’t let go of is funny to me.
I don't think you know what triggered means.  I'm a dude typing calmly at my computer.  Same as the rest of ya.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 25, 2023, 07:29:57 AM
So long as a quantitative ranking is explained, fine with me.  The notable ones stand out and get ... noted.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 26, 2023, 12:12:53 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/363381715_766917821901141_1867680872115409725_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=HNGa3k7YeScAX-MMwoZ&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDz_7WnNl4dhCG9RFAGtJ9ljNdnCLb3HOXa_GcASyeygA&oe=64C728AF)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 26, 2023, 02:24:43 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/362948590_326836666341657_8422144381183281822_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=tPvkHMIMH1YAX8ivtYv&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBya6Pfe52Kh9R2vQJNyZuqAynSgwF1Cya14cSmbrbcmg&oe=64C6B109)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 26, 2023, 02:26:51 PM
That's a fun list, I don't know what the CH team is.  Minnesota?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 26, 2023, 02:28:40 PM
Charlotte?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 26, 2023, 02:30:06 PM
Chicago is up 64%?  Huh.

Analysis: Construction slowing across U.S., but Atlanta bucks trend | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/construction-slowing-across-america-atl-bucks-trend-study)

(https://i.imgur.com/srKGyJZ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 26, 2023, 02:31:02 PM
That's a fun list, I don't know what the CH team is.  Minnesota?
Not sure what the "N" is  musta been leather helmut era
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2023, 02:52:09 PM
Chicago is up 64%?  Huh.

Analysis: Construction slowing across U.S., but Atlanta bucks trend | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/construction-slowing-across-america-atl-bucks-trend-study)


Not so much Chicago proper as it is the areas surrounding it - and that list includes NW Indiana and SE Wisconsin. Virtually anywhere you can access Chicago via commuter rail. It's vast.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 26, 2023, 02:55:48 PM
I figured it was probably metro.  The two projects cited for Atlanta are near me, definitely in the city.  I was pondering how many concrete trucks are needed for a building near us, they had two on site and four more lined up.  Maybe they run 50 a day?  100?  It's a two tower project 40 and 36 floors.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 26, 2023, 02:57:30 PM
That's a fun list, I don't know what the CH team is.  Minnesota?
Holy Cross
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 26, 2023, 03:07:12 PM
Thanks, I guess that one will stand forever.  Holy Cow.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2023, 03:11:49 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/362948590_326836666341657_8422144381183281822_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=tPvkHMIMH1YAX8ivtYv&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBya6Pfe52Kh9R2vQJNyZuqAynSgwF1Cya14cSmbrbcmg&oe=64C6B109)
Georgia could play games this season against Maryland, Nebraska, Wake and Houston and erase those immediately.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 28, 2023, 08:02:10 AM
I disagree with a lot of this list.

Top 10 States Voted as the Most Boring to Visit in the U.S. by Americans (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/top-10-states-voted-as-the-most-boring-to-visit-in-the-u-s-by-americans/ss-AA1es4SA?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dadb178068f54812979758f096d9dce7&ei=7#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 08:25:41 AM
Yeah, another good way of showing how our individual preferences influence such things.  I'd include the states in the middle of the country before say Idaho, but I like mountains.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 28, 2023, 09:12:26 AM
I disagree with a lot of this list.

Top 10 States Voted as the Most Boring to Visit in the U.S. by Americans (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/top-10-states-voted-as-the-most-boring-to-visit-in-the-u-s-by-americans/ss-AA1es4SA?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dadb178068f54812979758f096d9dce7&ei=7#image=1)
Basically every state is worth visiting. I suppose if one wanted to give the clickbait list some credit, 10 states would have to be the “most boring.” But it remains a pointless exercise. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 09:15:59 AM
Which ten would be most interesting is more interesting, interestingly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 28, 2023, 09:25:55 AM
Basically every state is worth visiting. I suppose if one wanted to give the clickbait list some credit, 10 states would have to be the “most boring.” But it remains a pointless exercise.
Yeah it's obviously clickbait and not worth a serious discussion.  Also seems targeted largely at the midwest, so it smells of some coastal snobbery.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 28, 2023, 09:28:12 AM
Yeah it's obviously clickbait and not worth a serious discussion.  Also seems targeted largely at the midwest, so it smells of some coastal snobbery.
They are also wrong about Wisconsin's geography. Very wrong.


"Wisconsin lacks geographical diversity, so it is quite boring."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 09:29:38 AM
Yeah it's obviously clickbait and not worth a serious discussion.  Also seems targeted largely at the midwest, so it smells of some coastal snobbery.
Are you saying a poll could be influenced by folks living where most folks live?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 28, 2023, 09:31:47 AM
Which ten would be most interesting is more interesting, interestingly.
Agree.  I like history and scenery so my ten most interesting states to visit might be:

Alaska
Hawaii
New York
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Virginia/Maryland (Washington DC)
Colorado
California



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 28, 2023, 09:32:57 AM
They are also wrong about Wisconsin's geography. Very wrong.


"Wisconsin lacks geographical diversity, so it is quite boring."


Are you saying a poll could be influenced by folks living where most folks live?

Well, I'm saying that people who live where most folks live don't know dick about what they're talking about, as bf pointed out.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 09:33:19 AM
Agree.  I like history and scenery so my ten most interesting states to visit might be:

Alaska
Hawaii
New York
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Virginia/Maryland (Washington DC)
Colorado
California
That is close to my list as well, I think.  I might swap NC for PA.  Wyoming would get a thought or three.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 28, 2023, 10:02:14 AM
That is close to my list as well, I think.  I might swap NC for PA.  Wyoming would get a thought or three.
Yup I almost put NC, lots of history and the coast and then the Smoky Mountains alongside Tennessee.

I've never been to Philadelphia so that's the main reason PA is on my list.  And Wyoming would be up there for me as well.

Georgia is interesting to me as well, plenty of history there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 28, 2023, 10:06:30 AM
Eh. I've visited a number of states on that list for work trips, and wouldn't voluntarily go again if I wasn't paid to. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 10:07:11 AM
Savannah is kind of neat, it's a bit over sold as such now because it's touristy, but it's worth a visit I think.  There is a new armor museum near Columbus, GA I'd like to see in whatever they call Fort Benning today.  The path of Sherman's march to Atlanta is interesting for buffs even though there weren't many larger battles and the smaller sites are just regular places now.  I've been told the Okeefenokee is worth a visit, never been.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 28, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Eh. I've visited a number of states on that list for work trips, and wouldn't voluntarily go again if I wasn't paid to.
Coastal snobbery in full effect. ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 28, 2023, 10:27:19 AM
Coastal snobbery in full effect. ;)
LOL. 

I really want to visit Idaho. It's one on the list that I'd visit voluntarily. I don't know much about North Dakota, but I would think there's some interesting topography there that might be interesting. Montana didn't make the list, but I absolutely want to go check that out too. 

Even Texas is on the list of places I've been but would like more time to visit, although it is arguable whether it qualifies a defense against "coastal snobbery" because it actually has a coast--even though I have no interest in visiting the coastal areas at all. Your coast sucks. 

But having grown up in Illinois and gone to school in Indiana... I've seen plenty of farmland. It's really not very interesting to visit. Illinois is a very uninteresting state with the exception of Chicago.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 10:27:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/vQhNii1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 28, 2023, 10:50:58 AM
Mountain States are just that. Just go to Wyoming (Jackson, Cody) and be done with them.

In no order, my list:

Wyoming
Maine
Tennessee
Texas
Louisiana
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 10:53:58 AM
I often think of national parks I'd like to visit.  Zion is one of my favorites.  I'd like to go back soonish and do the Utah park circle tour.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 28, 2023, 10:55:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/8fjns3N.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2023, 11:17:56 AM
College football rankings: Top 10 most talented defensive lines in 2023 (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-top-10-most-talented-defensive-lines-in-2023-213427488/#2204276)

Illinois?

At 7?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2023, 11:25:44 AM
This one always tickles me, we can't wait a couple weeks to see the real thing.

College football rankings: Projecting 2023 AP Top 25 preseason poll (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/alabama/LongFormArticle/college-football-rankings-projecting-2023-ap-top-25-preseason-poll-213426550/?~=1&fbclid=IwAR0tLQkCrDvfc_3NJ0w3vFKJRxRg9D7_UMDFFhcmDopuopthaKnLGuMaQoY)

No need to click.

#18 Wisconsin
#8 PSU
#3 OSU
#2 Michigan

#9 Texas (??)
#10 ND
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 01, 2023, 11:35:57 AM
[img width=274.381 height=397]https://i.imgur.com/vQhNii1.png[/img]
Did Tennessee reduce their capacity at some point? I seem to recall theirs being bigger than the Horseshoe.

I guess this is a question for @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) ?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2023, 11:41:52 AM
The 25 biggest college football stadiums in the country | NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-07-30/25-biggest-college-football-stadiums-country)

8 over 100K
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2023, 11:46:11 AM
The 25 biggest college football stadiums in the country | NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-07-30/25-biggest-college-football-stadiums-country)

8 over 100K

Interesting.  The Cotton Bowl's capacity is 92,100 so it would slot in at 10th, just behind Georgia and just ahead of UCLA/Rose Bowl.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 01, 2023, 12:20:02 PM
The 25 biggest college football stadiums in the country | NCAA.com (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-07-30/25-biggest-college-football-stadiums-country)

8 over 100K
Interesting.  The Cotton Bowl's capacity is 92,100 so it would slot in at 10th, just behind Georgia and just ahead of UCLA/Rose Bowl.
It is interesting the way they group/cluster:
First you have Michigan and Penn State way out front at 107,601 and 106,572 respectively. 

Next come six stadiums that are all within a tight range from #3 Ohio State at 102,780 to #8 Texas at 100,119. aTm, LSU, TN, and Bama are all between tOSU and UT.

Then there is a big drop-off down to Georgia at 92,746. After that each successive next biggest is within a few thousand seats or so.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2023, 12:32:06 PM
It is interesting the way they group/cluster:
First you have Michigan and Penn State way out front at 107,601 and 106,572 respectively.

Next come six stadiums that are all within a tight range from #3 Ohio State at 102,780 to #8 Texas at 100,119. aTm, LSU, TN, and Bama are all between tOSU and UT.

Then there is a big drop-off down to Georgia at 92,746. After that each successive next biggest is within a few thousand seats or so.

Several of the more recent stadium renovations around the country have actually reduced total capacity while increasing suite/club type seating, because that brings in a lot more cash.

At Texas our recent South Endzone renovation didn't reduce the total capacity, but it also didn't increase it.  If they'd just bowled in the South Endzone to match the North Endzone, the capacity would have been around 120,000.  But they decided to go a different direction and built it out with a lot of luxury suites, clubs, private loges, etc.  Those bring in a lot more revenue than just standard seats for Joe Fan do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Drew4UTk on August 01, 2023, 12:37:14 PM
Did Tennessee reduce their capacity at some point? I seem to recall theirs being bigger than the Horseshoe.

I guess this is a question for @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) ?
Yes,  they did and under the former train wreck of administration who went right at the profits and instant profits instead of long term return... they put in luxury boxes and sold them for rediculous amounts.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 01, 2023, 01:14:59 PM
Several of the more recent stadium renovations around the country have actually reduced total capacity while increasing suite/club type seating, because that brings in a lot more cash.

At Texas our recent South Endzone renovation didn't reduce the total capacity, but it also didn't increase it.  If they'd just bowled in the South Endzone to match the North Endzone, the capacity would have been around 120,000.  But they decided to go a different direction and built it out with a lot of luxury suites, clubs, private loges, etc.  Those bring in a lot more revenue than just standard seats for Joe Fan do.
Yep. Wisconsin has gone from 83,000 to 76,000. Quality seats over quantity of seats. And more $$$, of course.

They could have put a second upper deck in, but instead chose luxury boxes. Now the new South end zone seats are all premium.


(https://i.imgur.com/QaWdK7Y.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 01, 2023, 01:52:25 PM
Several of the more recent stadium renovations around the country have actually reduced total capacity while increasing suite/club type seating, because that brings in a lot more cash.

At Texas our recent South Endzone renovation didn't reduce the total capacity, but it also didn't increase it.  If they'd just bowled in the South Endzone to match the North Endzone, the capacity would have been around 120,000.  But they decided to go a different direction and built it out with a lot of luxury suites, clubs, private loges, etc.  Those bring in a lot more revenue than just standard seats for Joe Fan do.
Yes,  they did and under the former train wreck of administration who went right at the profits and instant profits instead of long term return... they put in luxury boxes and sold them for rediculous amounts. 
Quote from: 847badgerfan 8/1/2023, 1:14:59 PM

Yep. Wisconsin has gone from 83,000 to 76,000. Quality seats over quantity of seats. And more $$$, of course.

They could have put a second upper deck in, but instead chose luxury boxes. Now the new South end zone seats are all premium.

This is a common theme across the country. The original renovation plan at Ohio State would have reduced capacity to add higher dollar luxury suites but there was such an uproar that they rearranged it so as to not lose any seats. I think I remember the same thing happening at Michigan as well.

Most tOSU fans wanted capacity increased to 107,602 LoL.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 01, 2023, 02:26:00 PM
It won't be long before many of these go empty. 

Rabid fans are no longer being made - at least not like they used to. Kids today show up to be seen. The game doesn't matter to most of them.

And those are your future customers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on August 01, 2023, 02:27:03 PM
I think Ohio Stadium went to around 105K before the latest remodel to change suite configuration.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2023, 02:28:36 PM
Yeah, there has been quite a bit of spending on Sanford Stadium as well, but no more seats.  I can see how basic improvements are timely on a stadium nearing 100 years old (1929).  There has been chatter about expansion for many years now but the Admin seems to want to keep it where it is, and build more luxo boxes.

Sanford Stadium Renovations Bring Praise, Criticism from Fans and Media — Grady Newsource (uga.edu) (https://gradynewsource.uga.edu/sanford-stadium-renovations-bring-praise-criticism-from-fans-and-media/)

The massive construction project will feature improvements to the concession walkways and bathrooms in order to create more seating for premium donors. It will also create a brand new press box near the west end zone.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2023, 02:32:09 PM
It won't be long before many of these go empty.

Rabid fans are no longer being made - at least not like they used to. Kids today show up to be seen. The game doesn't matter to most of them.

And those are your future customers.
Yup.  The universities are pricing their future fans out of the market.  My dad took my siblings and me to numerous football games per year, it cost a couple of bucks.  I haven't taken my kids to a Texas home game in 4 or 5 years, it's just too expensive.  I've only been to 4 home games from 2019 to now, and that's because I had a friend with a free ticket (seats that he bought for his corporation to use as a perk for clients).

College football attendance is on a decade-plus decline, although 2022 actually saw an uptick in attendance.  But I don't see that as being sustainable, the trend is the opposite direction, and has been for quite a while.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 01, 2023, 02:39:04 PM
Yup.  The universities are pricing their future fans out of the market.  My dad took my siblings and me to numerous football games per year, it cost a couple of bucks.  I haven't taken my kids to a Texas home game in 4 or 5 years, it's just too expensive.  I've only been to 4 home games from 2019 to now, and that's because I had a friend with a free ticket (seats that he bought for his corporation to use as a perk for clients).

College football attendance is on a decade-plus decline, although 2022 actually saw an uptick in attendance.  But I don't see that as being sustainable, the trend is the opposite direction, and has been for quite a while.
Agreed.

Future changes to that list are more likely to come from a high ranking school dropping by reducing capacity than from a lower ranking school suddenly jumping up to the top eight.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2023, 02:47:38 PM
The overall comfort of watching at home for me surpasses the stadium experience.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 09:51:27 AM
Worst U.S. states to retire in 2023 (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/05/worst-us-states-to-retire-in-2023.html)

It could be useful just to note where states "rank" in the various criteria for folks.  Someone might think "I like the weather in North Dakota", so that isn't a factor for them.  The cost of housing isn't a factor if you already own a place there, or if you already live in a very high cost state moving to one in the middle.    

And of course nearly all of us would have different factors and weightings personally.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 09:55:37 AM
taxes and healthcare are usually high on the list for older folks - universally
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 09:58:30 AM
Yeah, you could lump that into "expenses" of course.  Housing might not be a factor for some.  And for some, paying more is more "affordable" and a choice to live where they want to live.  

A large think for me is walkability, I think it important to walk a lot as we age.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 10:03:09 AM
you might be in the minority there
I'm sure most doctors would agree with you
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 10:10:45 AM
can you walk to this place?

Pijiu Belly - 678 10th St NW, Atlanta, GA 30318

https://pijiubelly.com/ (https://pijiubelly.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on August 06, 2023, 10:22:33 AM
Can confirm

https://www.myrecipes.com/taste-tests/best-marinara-sauce
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 10:30:32 AM
can you walk to this place?

Pijiu Belly - 678 10th St NW, Atlanta, GA 30318

https://pijiubelly.com/ (https://pijiubelly.com/)
We could, it's probably 2.5 miles or so.  We don't usually cross the freeway.  That area is interesting though, it's "West Midtown" and used to be just older light industry, much of which is still around, but it has exploded in growth in the past decade, cheaper property, close to Tech, horrible traffic though.  Were we younger we'd probably be interested in living around there more than we are now.  It would be cheaper rentwise.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 06, 2023, 10:35:56 AM
can you walk to this place?

Pijiu Belly - 678 10th St NW, Atlanta, GA 30318

https://pijiubelly.com/ (https://pijiubelly.com/)
The only words mandarin Chinese words I know are ni hao, pijiu, and xiè xie.

What more do you need?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 10:38:08 AM
Zhao wu hao is useful.  And sheh sheh. and focachy

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 12:14:10 PM
PFF ranks Top 50 college football players in 2023 (on3.com) (https://www.on3.com/news/pff-ranks-top-50-college-football-players-in-2023/?fbclid=IwAR0ufG7d0YTg6XwB2L4QlfkOvK4ejJQIxxVLzbYAZ54Fb8K8EF89EhlY5Go)

Not really that interesting to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 02:01:56 PM
10 Small-Town South Dakota Restaurants That Are Worth The Drive


Danville Inn, Viborg
At the Danville, you can get a little bit of everything. Pizza, burgers, pasta, steak, you name it.

Sioux Valley Grille, Canton
This place has one of the best reputations around, and it's well deserved. Not only does it have some of the most delicious food in the entire Sioux Empire, it also may just have the friendliest staff you'll find anywhere.

Hartford Steak Co. Tavern - Hartford, SD
It’s all about the beef at the Hartford Steak Co. Tavern. The menu is small, but delicious! Sunday through Thursday, they serve filet mignon with a baked potato, French bread and a lettuce wedge with dressing. Friday and Saturday night’s are well-known as prime rib nights. The prime rib is also served with the same sides as the filet. Both cuts of meat are available in various sizes to accommodate different appetites. The best part – it’s really affordable. They're only open for dinner. 

Squealers Smoke Shack, Tea
This local restaurant is a hop, skip, and a jump away from Sioux Falls. They have amazing BBQ and...loaded mac and cheese.

Whimps Steakhouse - Burbank, SD
Going to the Dakota Dome? Make a pit stop in Burbank, just a few miles outside of Vermillion and treat yourself to a juicy steak at Whimps. They chicken is a hot item too. It's an all-American family, casual restaurant, located across from the shiny silos on White Street. 

Meridian Corner - Freeman, SD
If you like Sunday afternoon drives and want to take a tour of the back roads of southeast South Dakota, you might run into the Meridian Corner. It’s an old roadhouse south of Freeman at the intersection of Highways 18 and 81. If you like chislic and want to try tiger meat, this is road trip-worthy. First of all, tiger meat is not made from tiger. It is raw hamburger (yes, raw), raw egg and seasonings and served with crackers. This is roadhouse food, so you have to have Rocky Mountain oysters. Taste buds not that exotic? Your speed might be the broasted pork chop or fleischkuechle, basically a fried meat pie. It is worth the road trip to experience the unique flavors. 

Toby's Lounge - Meckling, SD
If you were a USD Coyote, there’s a good chance you’ve eaten at Toby’s Lounge. It’s an institution. If you can never decide what to order at a restaurant, that won’t be a problem at Toby’s. There are no menus. They serve chicken – good chicken. There are a few other things you could order, but why? If you’re not the one driving on this road trip, go ahead and have a few drinks. They’re strong and hit the spot. The building looks like a big tin shed, but trust me, you won’t be disappointed. Toby’s is located just 10 minutes northwest of Vermillion on Highway 50. 

CJ's at the Wellington, Montrose
This one-of-a-kind eatery used to be a bank. In fact, it still has the old vault inside! And make sure to get the New York Strip when you go. You won't be disappointed.

The Gulch, Garretson
With great customer service, a fantastic little bar, and some of the best broasted chicken and potato wedges in the Sioux Empire; You'll be glad you made a trip to the Gulch, and once you're a customer here, you'll be one for life.

Someday Cafe, Baltic
Baltic's only sit down restaurant hasn't been open all that long, but it's already making heads turn with its shrimp baskets, burgers, and chicken strips. This little gem is the definition of "YUM".
_________________________________________

I've been to Squealers Smoke Shack & Whimps
Whimps is awesome
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 02:08:35 PM
The Best Barbecue Joints in Georgia | Official Georgia Tourism & Travel Website | Explore Georgia.org (https://www.exploregeorgia.org/restaurants/article/the-best-barbecue-joints-in-georgia)

I think they focused more on geographic diversity here.  The place in Athens I would rate no better than "OK".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 06, 2023, 02:09:49 PM
PFF ranks Top 50 college football players in 2023 (on3.com) (https://www.on3.com/news/pff-ranks-top-50-college-football-players-in-2023/?fbclid=IwAR0ufG7d0YTg6XwB2L4QlfkOvK4ejJQIxxVLzbYAZ54Fb8K8EF89EhlY5Go)

Not really that interesting to me.
Brock Bowers is legit awesome and the best TE in 'Merica, but there is no way in hell he should be above Marvin Harrison. The only dude I'm taking over Marv is the guy they got #1 - Caleb Williams.

Tommy Eichenberg is a really good college LB, but yeah, not buying him as a top 20 player in the nation- he's not even close to that- and no way he should be a spot ahead of Will Johnson- who should be higher on this list than he is. PFF says in their own blurb Will Johnson lead all P5 CB's with a 91.1 grade in man to man coverage. As an 18 year old true frosh...6'3, 190+ lbs CBs with long arms and lock down man to man skills that can also really tackle and hit- yeah those don't grow on trees. That kid is a future top 10 NFL draft pick. 

Zak Zinter is arguably the best guard in college football and he's nowhere to be found. Guess they just don't value guards much. 

I love me some Blake Corum- who is #4 on their list. Donovan Edwards is better than Blake Corum. Donovan Edwards isn't even on the top 50 list. Make that make sense.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 06, 2023, 02:11:51 PM
Hook & Eye at Hampton Inn Blue Ridge

Come for the crisp mountain air and unparalleled views; stay for shareable plates, signature cocktails and live music at the newly opened Hook & Eye rooftop restaurant in Blue Ridge (https://www.exploregeorgia.org/city/blue-ridge). Dig into meatballs with creamy burrata cheese, a Wagyu beef burger, or street tacos as you watch the train pass by below. Sip on drinks like a Georgia Mule (vodka mule with a peach kick), Tilley Bend Witch Brew (named after a local witch tale), or a Hot House Holy Water (a local twist on a margarita) to wrap up a day of exploring the North Georgia mountains.
Make it a getaway: The Hook & Eye is perched atop the Hampton Inn Blue Ridge (https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/chabrhx-hampton-blue-ridge/), conveniently located in downtown Blue Ridge. Spend the weekend hiking to nearby waterfalls, riding the Blue Ridge Scenic Railway (https://www.exploregeorgia.org/blue-ridge/outdoors-nature/trails-tours/blue-ridge-scenic-railway), sampling fresh fruit at Mercier Orchards (https://www.exploregeorgia.org/blue-ridge/agritourism/farmers-markets/mercier-orchards) and much more.


Georgia's Must-Try Rooftop Bars | Explore Georgia, Official Travel Site (https://www.exploregeorgia.org/restaurants/list/amazing-rooftops-to-try-in-georgia)

We're headed there this weekend, I made plans before I saw this.  It's our tenth.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 06, 2023, 02:15:09 PM
Can confirm

https://www.myrecipes.com/taste-tests/best-marinara-sauce
Getting the idea Mezzetta paid handsomely for the results as they were at the top for Pesto too.Move along nothing to see here :017:

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 06, 2023, 02:20:04 PM
I love me some Blake Corum- who is #4 on their list. Donovan Edwards is better than Blake Corum. Donovan Edwards isn't even on the top 50 list. Make that make sense.
Ya Edwards is the guy that gives me the heeby-jeebies,inside/outside down field catches - tough to matchup. I'd spy him
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on August 06, 2023, 02:22:48 PM
Getting the idea Mezzetta paid handsomely for the results as they were at the top for Pesto too.Move along nothing to see here :017:


Lol maybe but their spicy sauce is far and away the best jarred sauce I've had. I used to get Carfagna's but not more.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 06, 2023, 02:31:26 PM
Mom use to can our own and ad fresh herbs when cooking - not me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 06, 2023, 02:33:13 PM
Ya Edwards is the guy that gives me the heeby-jeebies,inside/outside down field catches - tough to matchup. I'd spy him
something to consider- Donovan Edwards missed the UConn game and the Maryland game with a knee injury and only had 15 carries for 90 yards in the 2 OOC creampuff games to start the season he played in...he barely played vs Neb and missed the Illinois game bc of a hand injury- which means he did virtually all of his damage vs P5 teams despite dealing with a nagging knee injury and playing the last 3 games of the season with a cast on his broken right hand. He's right handed. Still averaged 7.5 YPC and racked up 991 yards rushing- with the bulk of that coming in games vs OSU/PSU/Purdue (B1G West champ)/TCU. Not exactly like he was padding stats vs creampuffs.

He is being criminally slept on right now- kid is 100% healthy- no knee issue and no cast on his right hand- and he's about to destroy the B1G- and they'll actually be able to use him in the passing game where he is a ridiculous mismatch now that he's got two hands.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 08:57:22 PM
I don't go for much red sauce anymore - heartburn

but I've always liked the Bertolli’s products
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 06, 2023, 09:51:29 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/364063648_1823360358066329_6859472102760426648_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=FtTNJ74xiYwAX_T59Fx&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCX_NUftbjF0d1IqNooUS2NB_U_Jettrkml_bfatwTDvQ&oe=64D51728)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 07, 2023, 12:15:40 AM
Charles Woodson at #25 is way too low. If we're talking college only, he should be above Deion and 10000% ahead of Randy Moss. Moss shouldn't even be on the list...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 07, 2023, 07:06:48 AM
Tommy Nobis is way underrated,he was right there with Butkus even quicker going sideline-sideline. And IMHO Horns wins it's 2nd NC under Mack if McCoy isn't hurt vs Bama
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 07, 2023, 04:22:48 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/363778762_811468340408247_5060753216292898113_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=unzsk-UdqskAX8d0jjx&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCp3vdm1ZKGsmUfbnbn-Q-0AgdnoIRb1hBudKyDipg_ug&oe=64D62AC4)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 07, 2023, 04:25:26 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/363778762_811468340408247_5060753216292898113_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=unzsk-UdqskAX8d0jjx&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCp3vdm1ZKGsmUfbnbn-Q-0AgdnoIRb1hBudKyDipg_ug&oe=64D62AC4)
JJ had better stats in his first year starting than 3 of those guys and outside of Caleb Williams not sure any one of those guys is more physically gifted than him in terms of size/athletic ability + arm talent. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 07, 2023, 04:51:11 PM
maybe he thinks the O-coordinator will just run the ball off tackle too much?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 07, 2023, 05:11:11 PM
maybe he thinks the O-coordinator will just run the ball off tackle too much?
could be. 

I want to say I heard/read that JJ was the #1 rated passer in CFB last year on play-action passes and the #1 rated passer throwing on the run. From the pocket? He was only #55th rated passer. Middle of the pack. A lot of his from the pocket struggles were JJ holding onto the ball too long, being late with reads/processing, sloppy with his drops and footwork. All things a young QB can fix with experience/reps/practice/discipline. 

JJ had some serious high level WOW moments in his first year starting. Other moments that were meh...and others that were disastrously bad (late pick 6's vs TCU). It's not a situation like Cade McNamara or other QBs that Jeem had where they just didn't have the talent or ability. JJ got shitloads of talent. Just has to get better, and he's got plenty of room for improvement. 

Things to consider: JJ was only a true soph and in his first year starting. JJ did not get #1 reps in bowl practices as a true frosh- which would've been a big boost to a young players development. JJ also missed all of '22 spring ball (highly valuable to young QB trying to develop and build rapport with his WRs/TEs) because of a shoulder injury, and then in '22 fall camp he was splitting #1 reps with the incumbent starter Cade McNamara. Again....something NOT conducive to a young, green QB trying to get better and build rapport with his WRs/TEs. 

Fast forward to JJ had an entire bowl practice getting the #1 reps. JJ was healthy this spring ball and got all those reps, and JJ will go through fall camp not having to split reps- he's going to get all the #1 reps. He SHOULD be able to improve his reads/processing time and build more rapport and timing with his WRs/TEs. I'll be pretty shocked if he doesn't make a considerable jump this year. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 08, 2023, 11:47:54 AM
We're amidst of course the preseason "polls" or rankings, whatever, and it's notable how much they coincide.  Why have so many if they all say about the same thing?  And somebody will do something weird to get clicks.

The Top Four will all be UGA/UM/OSU/Bama, the PSU/LSU/USC/Clemson in some order and then it gets more fuzzy.  And in this day of committees and playoffs, it of course has no meaning beyond perhaps noticing that someone has Ole Miss and Oregon State ranked.  

The other amusing thing is the comments section where fans of X will claim they are underranked or being disrespected.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 08, 2023, 01:47:21 PM
Tommy Nobis is way underrated,he was right there with Butkus even quicker going sideline-sideline. And IMHO Horns wins it's 2nd NC under Mack if McCoy isn't hurt vs Bama
Butkus was a 2-time AA in college, at CENTER. He also played linebacker.

He was lineman of the year in 1964.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 08, 2023, 01:56:26 PM
One thing I try and do with "all time greats" is just appreciate them for how they played and not worry overly about whether A should be ranked ahead of B.  I personally think that takes the enjoyment out of it and generates arguments for no reason.  Nobis was great, Butkus was great, etc.

I had some fun conversations with some exMLB pitchers about how to pitch to Tony Gwynn, one theory was throw a fastball down the middle.  They said you could throw a perfect pitch to him and he'd slap it into left field.

I saw a photo of him sitting with Ted Williams at some all star game a while back chatting.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 08, 2023, 01:58:32 PM
Tony Gwynn & Ted Williams Talk Hitting part 2 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lDK9CAbSc8)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 08, 2023, 06:00:51 PM
 The actual wonders included are the Great Wall of China, Chichén Itzá in Mexico, Petra in Jordan, Machu Picchu in Peru, the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil, the Colosseum in Italy and the Taj Mahal in India.

However, the Grand Canyon is included on a widely accepted list of the seven natural wonders of the world compiled by CNN in 1997, which also includes the northern lights, or aurora, the Great Barrier Reef, the Harbor at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Parícutin in Mexico, Victoria Falls on the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia, and Mount Everest.

I've seen green.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 08, 2023, 07:23:51 PM
One thing I try and do with "all time greats" is just appreciate them for how they played and not worry overly about whether A should be ranked ahead of B.  I personally think that takes the enjoyment out of it and generates arguments for no reason.  
Some people enjoy the arguments.
.
One could argue that Jonathan Taylor is the best RB ever.  
Or that Terrell Buckley was better than Deion at FSU.....except that for whatever reason, a vast majority of people are wholely unable to separate college and pro.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 08, 2023, 08:11:58 PM
Nobody likes arguments 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 08, 2023, 09:25:01 PM
I didn't

especially with the Ex-wife
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 08, 2023, 10:21:40 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3BNZTMWYAAHtIY?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 09, 2023, 08:24:25 AM
Some people enjoy the arguments.
.
One could argue that Jonathan Taylor is the best RB ever. 
Or that Terrell Buckley was better than Deion at FSU.....except that for whatever reason, a vast majority of people are wholely unable to separate college and pro.

Best ever at Wisconsin, yes.

Ever nationally? Definitely in the discussion.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 11, 2023, 08:43:20 AM
chew on this... 


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3NOMf1b0AEw_cG?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 11, 2023, 09:13:38 AM
Pretty tough to not be the best program in your state when there is no other FBS/P5 program.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 11, 2023, 09:14:39 AM
Take that, TCU!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 11, 2023, 09:30:51 AM
Take that, TCU!
And OU!!


OUch!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 11, 2023, 09:43:24 AM
LSU is green?? 

Or Tulane
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 11, 2023, 09:45:24 AM
And OU!!


OUch!!!
Poooooorrrrrrrr soooooonnnneeeeeeerrrrssssssssss.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 12, 2023, 09:21:07 AM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366606472_835705801251435_6580505596228765441_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7f8c78&_nc_ohc=ucg_fhHRb3cAX9fOZGU&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfARbYPkqWM9UTLk333VZkdnG-OpAW_KW68_nQRCtNkL0g&oe=64DB94F1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 12, 2023, 09:21:42 AM
Jerry Kill???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 12, 2023, 10:24:35 AM
The Catamounts were crowned the best team in Vermont, in spite of not having a team since 1974.

Take that, Middlebury. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 12, 2023, 10:32:26 AM
Jerry Kill???
Heh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 12, 2023, 02:59:23 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366606472_835705801251435_6580505596228765441_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=7f8c78&_nc_ohc=ucg_fhHRb3cAX9fOZGU&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfARbYPkqWM9UTLk333VZkdnG-OpAW_KW68_nQRCtNkL0g&oe=64DB94F1)
Every single sports-related social media ranking is a horseshit attempt at getting outrage clicks.
It's so boring.
Let's put a 70 year old fat guy at #2.  That'll do it.
Every post like this with 10K reactions/likes/shares is evidence against democracy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 13, 2023, 11:05:36 AM
https://247sports.com/college/auburn/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-americas-premier-jobs-and-what-makes-them-elite-213981992/#2212913
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 13, 2023, 03:17:37 PM
What is a catamount?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 13, 2023, 04:00:15 PM
More like what WAS a Catamount. 

(https://gray-wcax-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/5ea0IKWdvKJa5rSzvRh006C7rMc=/1200x675/smart/filters:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/VCGZU2M2XNLABBJYE7LOVUPIUI.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 13, 2023, 09:04:26 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3b_5GNX0AAss__?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 14, 2023, 12:31:56 PM
AP Top 25 Preseason Poll: Georgia football ranked No. 1 for 2023 (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/article/ap-top-25-preseason-poll-georgia-football-ranked-no-1-for-2023-214254731/?fbclid=IwAR2N6legcUtwFP0DAuev-tYh-vMTVq8xAtPACteT02EP0cnr5C44jdZ6aK4)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2023, 02:55:17 PM
All the MLB Stadiums, Ranked by Their Food (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/all-the-mlb-stadiums-ranked-by-their-food/ar-AA1fga5h?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=816761db8d7349f188feab896a8bfce0&ei=24)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 15, 2023, 11:30:24 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3l2au_XAAM0l8U?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 16, 2023, 09:00:40 AM
Rice MOB is the best college marching band in Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 16, 2023, 09:17:15 AM
It's a bit interesting to me how the MB is a relatively Big Deal with some programs and a distinct afterthought with others.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 16, 2023, 11:54:12 AM
It's a bit interesting to me how the MB is a relatively Big Deal with some programs and a distinct afterthought with others. 



Geography, and resources, likely play the largest part.  College marching bands are big in Texas, because high school marching bands are a big deal here.

This website follows all of the high school marching band competitions around the country, and ranks the top high school bands.

https://www.hornrank.com/p/top30.html

18 of the top 32 are from Texas.  The next highest number from one state, is 5 from Indiana.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 16, 2023, 01:23:26 PM
It's not a big thing here at all, or wasn't when I was in HS, nor was it at UGA.  It may be somewhat more important there now, but not much.  I think they are the "Redcoat Marching Band", which is kinda funny,.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 16, 2023, 04:53:19 PM
Ranking each top 10 team's starting quarterback ahead of 2023 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/ranking-each-top-10-teams-starting-quarterback-ahead-of-2023-season-214358210/?fbclid=IwAR0bRNHTRpr2WQSxQM-QEDVRLaLGo_F98ypdmUYcvYpa14yxtZXl_4ZqrGQ)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 16, 2023, 11:41:44 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3rc406XgAA3XN7?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 17, 2023, 06:50:16 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/367688445_747652707165622_4430608348710821410_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=6ZxTjzCy9bsAX9RJZBt&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDrugi438xKrBLTyVNt-DrHzO3LnEI2Dk-HXr3FjL6FQw&oe=64E2EBF7)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 17, 2023, 09:16:00 PM
You gotta put Boise at 3rd, right?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 18, 2023, 06:26:33 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F31miqUWMAAudH2?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 18, 2023, 10:37:29 PM
#7 >>> #10

I'm sure some Texans agree
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 19, 2023, 02:57:31 AM
Top 10 Win% before my lifetime:
1. ND
2. Michigan
3. Alabama
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Oklahoma
7. OSU
8. Tennessee
9. Penn St
10. Nebraska
.
My lifetime:
1. OSU
2. Oklahoma
3. FSU
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Miami
7. Nebraska
8. Florida
9. Clemson
10. Michigan
----------------
12. Penn St
15. USC
16. Texas
18. ND......not special
20. Tennessee
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2023, 07:59:02 AM
my lifetime


1 Ohio State 
2 Boise State 
3 Alabama 
4 Oklahoma 
5 Nebraska 
6 Penn State 
7 Michigan 
8 Georgia 
9 Southern Cal 
10 Texas 
11 Notre Dame 
12 Florida State 
13 Florida 
14 Louisiana State 
15 Auburn 
16 Clemson 
17 Brigham Young 
18 Tennessee
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 19, 2023, 09:52:44 AM
really pains my ass to say this, but I think Ohio State just might be the best program of all-time just based on sheer consistency. they've won a ton in every decade- it's literally insane how good they've been for so long. they've never really went into the tank and had lost decades and sucked royally like Michigan, ND, Bama, USC, Nebraska, OU, Texas- just about EVERYBODY else has. they have boatloads of hardware as well like Heisman winners, NFL HOF'ers, All-Americans, 1st round picks, and MNC's.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 19, 2023, 10:14:24 AM
The ranking above is based on some formula, of course, "we" could devise our own and come up with somewhat different results.  The OSU consistency is as noted without parallel.  Alabama's 394 national championships is unmatched.  Notre Dame's helmets are gold, hard to top that.

My own "formula" would date back to 1937 and simply be 20 points for a week ranked #1, and 19 for #2, etc.  You'd get a pretty similar ranking.  An easier one would be just weeks ranked in the top  ten, AP.  I don't credit NCs with being all that special because of the semirandom nature of them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 19, 2023, 10:38:15 AM
247Sports ranks the top 100 CFB players heading into 2023... LINK (https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-football-2023-best-players-rankings-caleb-williams-marvin-harrison-brock-bowers-drake-maye-214272512/#2215916)

yeah this list is absolute garbage LOL. 

Quinn Ewers who completed just 58% of his passes and only threw 15 TD passes vs 6 INT's last year is #17 on this list. LMAO. GTFO. Travis Hunter- who has done absolutely nothing at this level- and was just pretty good for a freshman at the FCS level- not a dominant freak show like you'd have expected- is #26 on their list. LMAO. GTFO. Joe Milton- who cannot hit the broadside of a barn and is wildly inaccurate and has barely even played college football- is #54 on their list. LMAO. GTFO. 

Will Johnson ranked at #43 when there isn't a better man to man cover corner in the game- highest rated PFF grade in man coverage of ANY CB in CFB last year- as an 18 year old true frosh. Get outta here. Kalen King at #13 is too high imo. He's a really good CB but yeah, not buying that ranking. Flip Will Johnson and Kalen King's rankings and that looks about right to me. Abdul Carter at #57 is way too low. Olu Fashanu at #5 is too high as well- dude had a terrible run grade by PFF- at 59.1. Elite pass blocker with ridiculous frame and plus athleticism- which is why he's projected as a high NFL draft pick at LT- bc that's ALL the NFL cares about is pass blocking- but his run blocking is subpar- and not sure I'm putting a tackle THAT high who is pretty meh as a run blocker....oh and no Rod Moore or Donovan Edwards of Michigan in the top 100 at all is a joke. Moore is the highest graded returning safety in the P5 according to PFF and Edwards is only a better football player than the guy they have at #8 on this garbage list- his own teammate Blake Corum. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 19, 2023, 10:45:05 AM
I glanced at that "ranking" briefly and shrugged.  Click bait.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 19, 2023, 10:47:51 AM
247 has really gone downhill. Rivals has two Wisconsin writers on staff that were with 247 - 247 didn't want to pay them. Badger247 down to one writer. Inexcusable for the number of members, which soon will not include me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 19, 2023, 10:55:48 AM
College football's top 100 players for 2023 - ESPN (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38122924/top-100-players-caleb-williams-maye-bowers-2023)

More click bait, don't bother.  It's an OK list, I guess, but some of these players of course will fail to shine and others will.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 19, 2023, 11:08:28 AM
College football's top 100 players for 2023 - ESPN (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38122924/top-100-players-caleb-williams-maye-bowers-2023)

More click bait, don't bother.  It's an OK list, I guess, but some of these players of course will fail to shine and others will.
list has it's issues- as will every list like this...but it's 10x better than that garbage 247 tried to shit out lol. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2023, 09:06:08 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/368842796_633969485501963_3274307633942966111_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=KPJw3iXI9pYAX-4F3c8&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDUICcGStyrUXVtxx1sqhP8N0HCkKVOKzi-Xfu-RVJmwg&oe=64E605A7)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 20, 2023, 07:07:42 AM
That list seems pretty reasonable to me, at first blush.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 20, 2023, 08:02:50 AM
45+ Worst Colleges and Universities in America Ranked – avocadoposts (https://avocadoposts.com/45-worst-colleges-and-universities-in-america-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=DUP DNA_Vidazoo_ENT_Worst Schools_P1_KNI_Adv%2B - vv20AP AP FB WW)

I was surprised to see Texas and Wisconsin on this list.  But lists often are click bait.  Duh.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 20, 2023, 11:32:58 AM
Lulz

"Texas College"

I've never even heard of it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 21, 2023, 07:50:06 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4FJQeAWoAAKt1B?format=png&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 08:04:39 AM
They even have MLB "rankings" now.  OK then.  Standings, sure, but rankings?

"We" want everything ranked.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 08:18:53 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4FJQeAWoAAKt1B?format=png&name=900x900)
I'd put Tenn and UGA on there before Tenn and KY. And no ND? Hmmm.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 08:22:38 AM
Yeah, UGA-UF should be ahead of Auburn, and South Carolina shouldn't be there at all.  I guess you reeally run out after about 15.  Whatever.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2023, 08:52:07 AM
I'd put Tenn and UGA on there before Tenn and KY. And no ND? Hmmm.
what border state school do they play regularly?
Michigan St?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 09:01:37 AM
MSU was more often than M, but now that they have to play all of those ACC games, the ones against the B1G schools waned.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2023, 09:05:48 AM
yup, this is what folks that want rotating schedules in 18-team conferences don't understand

killing of rivalries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 09:06:47 AM
Pitt-WVU has no business being on any list....sorry. 

UGA-UF should be #3....why is that behind UGA-Auburn? Da fk?

BAMA-Tenn was a really good rivalry until Tennessee went into the freaking tank and sucked ass for eons. Maybe it's coming back? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2023, 09:08:16 AM
MSU was more often than M, but now that they have to play all of those ACC games, the ones against the B1G schools waned.

Yeah I've never really thought of MSU-ND as a rivalry although they're met 79 times.

UM-ND seems like more of one, but they've only played something like 43 times.  And it seems like most of the really good rivalries formed much of their lore during the "Golden Era" of college football in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, but Michigan and ND only played 4 times in those entire 4 decades
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 09:08:48 AM
yup, this is what folks that want rotating schedules in 18-team conferences don't understand

killing of rivalries
realignment has killed some great ones....RIP Nebraska-OU.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2023, 09:09:18 AM
yup, this is what folks that want rotating schedules in 18-team conferences don't understand

killing of rivalries
Well you protect the true rivalries, obviously.

But it doesn't make for creating new ones, I'll grant you that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2023, 09:11:55 AM
Pitt-WVU has no business being on any list....sorry.

UGA-UF should be #3....why is that behind UGA-Auburn? Da fk?

BAMA-Tenn was a really good rivalry until Tennessee went into the freaking tank and sucked ass for eons. Maybe it's coming back?
yes, when you limit the annual opponents to 3 or maybe 4 protected rivalries, when one or two go lopsided for a decade it's not a rivalry any longer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2023, 09:12:45 AM
Well you protect the true rivalries, obviously.

But it doesn't make for creating new ones, I'll grant you that.
yup, and as some old rivalries fade, new ones aren't created
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 09:14:06 AM
Yeah I've never really thought of MSU-ND as a rivalry although they're met 79 times.

UM-ND seems like more of one, but they've only played something like 43 times.  And it seems like most of the really good rivalries formed much of their lore during the "Golden Era" of college football in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, but Michigan and ND only played 4 times in those entire 4 decades
M-ND have a weird ass relationship/history. Lots of pettiness and bad blood there on both sides. They are natural born rivals though- just makes so much sense for them to play each other every year- yet they don't. There were some great M-ND games in the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 2010s. Even in the 2000 and 2010s when one team was bad or they were both bad- the games were usually very good. 

I do wish they'd play every year. Even though I hate them. Not gonna lie. It's two of the biggest brands in the sport- and it's good for the sport when they play each other. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2023, 09:24:13 AM
M-ND have a weird ass relationship/history. Lots of pettiness and bad blood there on both sides. They are natural born rivals though- just makes so much sense for them to play each other every year- yet they don't. There were some great M-ND games in the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 2010s. Even in the 2000 and 2010s when one team was bad or they were both bad- the games were usually very good.

I do wish they'd play every year. Even though I hate them. Not gonna lie. It's two of the biggest brands in the sport- and it's good for the sport when they play each other.

Yup I'd love to see them play every year, too.

That's the thing I'm most excited about with Texas moving to the SEC-- renewing our annual rivalries with Texas A&M and Arkansas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 09:48:02 AM
Maybe ND will someday join the Big 100.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 10:00:49 AM
Maybe ND will someday join the Big 100.
I say take ND and one of Miami/UNC/FSU/Clem, call it the B1G20 and put a bow on it call it a day
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 10:05:30 AM
I say take ND and one of Miami/UNC/FSU/Clem, call it the B1G20 and put a bow on it call it a day
I think they are going to 24.

So, Stanford, ND, Miami, FSU, UNC and UVA.

4 6 team divisions, one divisional championship game and a final.

Then the MNC game against the SEC24 winner.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 10:14:06 AM
I think they are going to 24.

So, Stanford, ND, Miami, FSU, UNC and UVA.

4 6 team divisions, one divisional championship game and a final.

Then the MNC game against the SEC24 winner.
I'd be cool with that. think it's stupid af that we have like 197 FBS teams as it is....there's no need for that.

48 teams in two super conferences with a playoff sounds about right....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 10:24:31 AM
I'd be cool with that. think it's stupid af that we have like 197 FBS teams as it is....there's no need for that.

48 teams in two super conferences with a playoff sounds about right....
I don't know about "right" but we are where we are and we ain't going back. 

I wish for 6 conferences of 10 schools each. Not gonna happen, even though it would be right.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 22, 2023, 10:35:30 AM
Screw ND.

If someday there is a BIG 100, I hope ND is 101. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 10:37:20 AM
Is it possible to form a "football association" or independents?  Not exactly a conference, but they'd play each other annually.  TV monies would not be split.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: jgvol on August 22, 2023, 10:44:35 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4FJQeAWoAAKt1B?format=png&name=900x900)

Anyone pining for that Colorado St. / Wyoming border war?  WTF
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: jgvol on August 22, 2023, 10:47:32 AM
Pitt-WVU has no business being on any list....sorry.

UGA-UF should be #3....why is that behind UGA-Auburn? Da fk?

BAMA-Tenn was a really good rivalry until Tennessee went into the freaking tank and sucked ass for eons. Maybe it's coming back?

UGA/Auburn gets a lot of run as "The South's oldest rivalry".   Bad overplayed.

Even with TN's suckage over the last 15 years -- TN/Bama is far superior.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 22, 2023, 10:48:45 AM
Screw ND.

If someday there is a BIG 100, I hope ND is 101.
Lol I hate em too but I do think they'd be a huge addition for the B1G and ultimately I want the B1G to get better and catch up to the SEC. I mean the brands the B1G would have....Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, USC, and ND? God damn man. They bring TV eye balls. TV eye balls tuning in is what will bring the money now more than ever with all the cord cutting- can't force BTN on basic cable packages in footprint states anymore. Then also having Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA....not bad man...not bad at all. That's a pretty nice lineup.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: jgvol on August 22, 2023, 10:50:54 AM
What are the chances ND ends up in the SEC?

I've no clue --- I have pondered it recently, however.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 10:51:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/TKL1lzx.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 11:17:58 AM
What are the chances ND ends up in the SEC?

I've no clue --- I have pondered it recently, however.
The chances are about the same as them ending up in the Big 100. Whoever offers the best deal wins.

$$$ talks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 22, 2023, 11:21:23 AM
Anyone pining for that Colorado St. / Wyoming border war?  WTF
Hell I'd go if it was closer,I'm sure they know how to tailgate
 And the New York Times goes on the bottom of the Bird Cage
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: jgvol on August 22, 2023, 11:26:07 AM
Hell I'd go if it was closer,I'm sure they know how to tailgate

They'd better know how.  Cause they sure don't know how to play football.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 01:13:57 PM
Josh Pate On CFB's MOST Uncertain Teams In 2023 (Late Kick Cut) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzQNTxHzvY)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 22, 2023, 02:45:15 PM
They'd better know how.  Cause they sure don't know how to play football.
Following hard luck sport teams in Cleveland for over 5 decades ensure That. Since there's not much talk of play offs or success well might as well drink
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on August 22, 2023, 03:31:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/TKL1lzx.jpg)
Ok, fine. I agree with Fro. No God.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 22, 2023, 04:14:21 PM
The secret with the Cincy coney is to use that stadium mustard out of Cleveland in place of the yella mustard that is standard. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 04:18:18 PM
Is Cleveland mustard the brown and spicy type? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 05:01:04 PM
A Cincy Coney mostly tastes like cheese with a bit of bread and something else.  They are, perhaps, "interesting"?  I never really got them.

A small hotdog with a lot of cheese.  I prefer slaw dogs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 22, 2023, 05:12:37 PM
Is Cleveland mustard the brown and spicy type?
Yes. It's delicious. 

(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/8d15ac12-f5d8-4e1f-ae2c-cff44e847a60_1.e852332b018cc00b26c8e161de5fa177.jpeg?odnHeight=768&odnWidth=768&odnBg=FFFFFF)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2023, 05:30:22 PM
I'd like that, I'm sure. I buy Koops brand.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2023, 05:32:28 PM
Maille Old Style Whole Grain Mustard - World Market (https://www.worldmarket.com/p/maille-old-style-whole-grain-mustard-621637.html?mrkgadid=&mrkgcl=660&mrkgen=&mrkgbflag=&mrkgcat=&camp=ppc%3Agoogle%3A_pMax_%2BConsumables&acctid=21700000001660222&dskeywordid=&lid=58700008439922133&dsproductgroupid=&product_id=621637&merchid=5165106&prodctry=US&prodlang=en&channel=local&storeid=CP42&device=c&network=x&matchtype=&locationid=9010928&creative=&targetid=&campaignid=20276579494&adgroupid=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwuZGnBhD1ARIsACxbAVihIJ7nZt3o2ZBmPIE2-0TomJyRoF39JjKLCwov7HIdU_EBcfBVNe8aAoBjEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds)

This is my go to for most things.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2023, 10:29:09 PM
my buddy makes this..............

I love it.

It's a bit spicy & sweet

(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55e6fdb0e4b05e0262ccf48d/1660834277836-CG88TNW0BCA5QH90CHR0/PXL_20220818_144614445.PORTRAIT.jpg?format=750w)

https://www.gaylenspopcorn.com/store/48-peppers-spicy-mustard (https://www.gaylenspopcorn.com/store/48-peppers-spicy-mustard)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 23, 2023, 04:08:07 PM
sorry, no michigan men

(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/368236401_871484674343834_2786315247771117051_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=qj81wH2NCqEAX9IKAHM&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfB_V9QWujAP7MwCUylt1d7-8jJLBZXD43VJUsz462L_Hg&oe=64EBC650)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 23, 2023, 04:25:37 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366738661_869469274545374_4010328093083292777_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=GXA0PEXFXN0AX-a55Kd&_nc_oc=AQnQsUP_DjOBHTKRHx6A_A3dNtB2TS_lX_MAt4Za4kV1DjSmJcRFldWmbPyOHkQWocA&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAy7PuGO521VQb206A8um3BBa93nKirbQFiJJzo2QRq0A&oe=64EB94E1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 23, 2023, 05:57:59 PM
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366738661_869469274545374_4010328093083292777_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=GXA0PEXFXN0AX-a55Kd&_nc_oc=AQnQsUP_DjOBHTKRHx6A_A3dNtB2TS_lX_MAt4Za4kV1DjSmJcRFldWmbPyOHkQWocA&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAy7PuGO521VQb206A8um3BBa93nKirbQFiJJzo2QRq0A&oe=64EB94E1)
Colston Loveland is about to blow up this year imo. SO much talent and potential, really flashed at the end of the season as a true freshman. From a raw talent standpoint as a receiver- don't think I've ever seen anyone have as much at TE at Michigan. Major upside that one has- he's got 1st rd NFL draft kind of talent. 

Erick All definitely belongs on the list if he's really 100% healthy. He had a spinal injury- and those are well- tricky. Man it still sucks losing him. Dude has speed/burst that most 250+ pound TE's just flat out don't have. Rooting for him at Iowa.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 23, 2023, 06:25:32 PM
sorry, no michigan men

(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/368236401_871484674343834_2786315247771117051_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=qj81wH2NCqEAX9IKAHM&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfB_V9QWujAP7MwCUylt1d7-8jJLBZXD43VJUsz462L_Hg&oe=64EBC650)
Aaron Lewis started out at Michigan....do we get credit for that? 

On a serious note, Michigan shouldn't have anyone on this list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 23, 2023, 07:08:36 PM
in spirit of Fearless B1G Network top 5 lists...their top 5 CBs list just came out...

1) Kalen King, Penn State
2) Cooper DeJean, Iowa
3) Will Johnson, Michigan
4) Tarheeb Still, Maryland
5) Tahveon Nicholson, Illinois

They can make all these stupid lists they want. Will Johnson is the best CB in the B1G and is the best CB in the nation. He's a future top 5 NFL draft pick. Former 5* CB who came in as a true freshman and had a 91.1 PFF grade in man to man coverage- which lead the entire FBS last year- and had 3 INT's. Yeah, not taking anyone over him- and that's no homer- just calling it how I see it. Long levered, long armed 6'3", 200 lbs CBs that can flip their hips, have elite ball skills, and elite man coverage skills flat out don't grow on trees...they are unicorns. Plus he can really hit.

Dude is the best NFL draft prospect CB they've had since Woodson.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fpfy9I2WcAACSvp?format=webp&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 23, 2023, 08:29:49 PM
Tulane in the Top Ten? 

UAB doesn't even get honorable mention? 

No Bama? 

Madness! 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4OmMAXXYAEqk_w?format=webp&name=small)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 23, 2023, 08:31:02 PM
Jake Butt's top tight ends......that's a Chip n Dale's reference, no?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 23, 2023, 08:32:57 PM
Tulane in the Top Ten?

UAB doesn't even get honorable mention?

No Bama?

Madness!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4OmMAXXYAEqk_w?format=webp&name=small)
Sooooo either have a classic look from grainy-footage, silent-film days OR do a powder-blue thing.  
Got it!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 23, 2023, 08:35:06 PM
OU, boring....Arkansas - looks like OU.....ECU at 25 makes me think of their "entering the 4th quarter" thing.
I know Florida does the alma-mater with everyone swaying back and forth, and the new the "Won't Back Down" Tom Petty thing is cool.
ECU's "No Quarter" thing is awesome - hoisting a red flag, blaring "no quarter," signifying no prisoners are to be taken......it's kick ass. (not the video or music (Welcome to the Jungle...WTF?, but the fact they literally raise the red flag and a huge one crowd-surfs))
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: jgvol on August 23, 2023, 09:36:19 PM
Tulane in the Top Ten?

UAB doesn't even get honorable mention?

No Bama?

Madness!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4OmMAXXYAEqk_w?format=webp&name=small)

Penn St., Kansas St. should be 1 and 2. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 23, 2023, 09:40:29 PM
Yeah, no Penn State? The CFB version of the Yankee Pinstripes? 

Did they just draw names out of a hat? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on August 23, 2023, 10:19:02 PM
Jake Butt's top tight ends......that's a Chip n Dale's reference, no?
Wait til he gets to the wide recievers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 23, 2023, 11:05:08 PM
Penn St., Kansas St. should be 1 and 2. 
as long as it's not orange or baby shit orange like the Horns
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on August 24, 2023, 06:13:57 AM
Yeah, no Penn State? The CFB version of the Yankee Pinstripes?

Did they just draw names out of a hat?
I’ll be honest.  I love it.  Not necessarily because I agree with every team on the list but because the list is unique.  I’ve said this before on here, but one of my pet peeves about best uniforms lists is I think it’s too influenced by the success of the team.

I’ve always maintained if you give Penn St the historic on field success of Indiana no one is talking about how “clean” and “classic” they look.  So, good for this dude for at least coming up with a list I’ve never seen before.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 24, 2023, 07:39:28 AM
I agree the uniform thing is influenced by succcess, what about NDSU?  (I have no clue what their uni looks like.)

And of course it's entirely subjective.  Anyway, it's another ranking that I find rather silly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 25, 2023, 08:59:34 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/8Deju9I.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 25, 2023, 09:31:35 AM
as long as it's not orange or baby shit orange like the Horns
If your baby ever shits burnt orange you need to hit the ER ASAP.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on August 25, 2023, 10:01:32 AM
If your baby ever shits burnt orange you need to hit the ER ASAP.
When I was very young I got into my moms lip stick and ate several of them

she told me the next day my poop was rainbow colored ...... I was very woke
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 25, 2023, 10:06:54 AM
If your baby ever shits burnt orange you need to hit the ER ASAP.
BEVO shits like that
one reason BEVO isn't allowed in Memorial Stadium
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 25, 2023, 10:08:32 AM
My son had a lot of ear infections, which meant amoxicillin, and that turned his feces wattery and orange.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 25, 2023, 10:10:30 AM
This is a shitty thread.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 25, 2023, 10:11:27 AM
the shitty thread ranking coming soon
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 25, 2023, 02:52:38 PM
Some rankings for CDawg.

World University Rankings 2023 | Global 2000 List | CWUR (https://cwur.org/2023.php)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 25, 2023, 04:01:52 PM
Go in state public, get your degree in four years, done.  If eng, take five.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 25, 2023, 04:09:23 PM
Or go the tech school, come out with no debt, and get to work.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 25, 2023, 04:11:24 PM
For many, that would be better.  Ths US sends too many of us to college.  It's a kind of birthright now for many.

Folks who admire Europe should appreciate they send about half as many kids to college there.  And they spend less per capita on K-12.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 25, 2023, 04:16:01 PM
England teacher strikes: How do teachers' salaries compare across Europe? | Euronews (https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/07/05/teachers-pay-which-countries-pay-the-most-and-the-least-in-europe)

Rankings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 25, 2023, 04:34:29 PM
oh come on, other countries have teacher unions with strikes???

the president of the USA has screwed up more than just this country???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 26, 2023, 11:58:55 AM
Some rankings, for CDawg.

10 best coaches ahead of 2023 college football season, ranked (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/10-best-coaches-ahead-of-2023-college-football-season-ranked/ar-AA1fOqQS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b66b9c0a7334d5fa4d93d669c39f922&ei=10)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 26, 2023, 01:00:56 PM
Some rankings, for CDawg.

10 best coaches ahead of 2023 college football season, ranked (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/10-best-coaches-ahead-of-2023-college-football-season-ranked/ar-AA1fOqQS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6b66b9c0a7334d5fa4d93d669c39f922&ei=10)
Yeah, a good example of a pointless ranking to me.  A good coach is simply a coach of a team that wins a lot, duh.  He might be a mediocre coach elsewhere.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 27, 2023, 12:03:19 AM
I'm having trouble thinking of anything less useful than preseason all-conference teams.  I get it for magazines - they have something to sell.
But not official ones by the media.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 27, 2023, 08:37:19 AM
Folks have something to sell whether mags or media outlets.  It gets clicks.  I guess folks pay extra for ESPN plus or whatever it is.

I can't think of a sport where rankings really mean much today.  I guess if your team ends up ranked top ten, that's a thing for you, maybe, or ranked at all.  Preseason rankings are "OK" to me for thinking about those teams ranked 15 and down that surprise you, as you weren't thinking about them as being decent.

UGA likely will stay ranked #1 until at least November, barring large upset, and what does that mean?  Not much really.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 27, 2023, 08:52:40 AM
PayScale: College Salary Report

"Choosing a college and deciding to get a degree are big decisions, so do your homework and choose the degree and school that will set you up for the career of your dreams. PayScale's College Salary Report ranks undergraduate and 2-year colleges by the highest earning graduates."

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report (https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 27, 2023, 08:59:15 AM
They should calculate the cost of attending to get some kind of FPV on that decision.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2023, 09:11:05 AM
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/370643029_353199743698515_2252299632181089822_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=2fu3FlU5rNYAX9cQVl_&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=00_AfCSwrnGDDkMZ0ZDklNMLhwEfqTS25XaM6P9BUqnSq75wA&oe=64F2631B)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 30, 2023, 09:42:46 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/T5PSZAu.png)

Another good example of what to me is a pointless ranking.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 30, 2023, 11:14:08 AM
https://twitter.com/CFBRep/status/1696688505307509070?s=20
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 30, 2023, 11:17:44 AM
Brad Crawford can suck it!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 30, 2023, 11:28:03 AM
Brad Crawford can suck it!
yeah, he's an obvious dumbass. Michigan and Notre Dame are both easily top 5 national brands in college football. Dumbfk has Michigan at #16 and ND at #12. Lol.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 30, 2023, 11:40:46 AM
That list is trash.

UW not in the top 25? LMAO.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 30, 2023, 11:52:22 AM
Well, it's in  keeping with the theme of this thread, e.g., how many things get "ranked" by someone, whether they make any sense or not, often not, and whether the rankings even mean anything at all useful or notable.

Now, someone might define "biggest brands" with something related and quantative, like money spent buying shirts etc.  Maybe that list would be, well, a list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 30, 2023, 12:06:27 PM
Well, it's in  keeping with the theme of this thread, e.g., how many things get "ranked" by someone, whether they make any sense or not, often not, and whether the rankings even mean anything at all useful or notable.

Now, someone might define "biggest brands" with something related and quantative, like money spent buying shirts etc.  Maybe that list would be, well, a list.
yeah except measuring which brands are the biggest is a very easy and objective thing to do- and there is no subjectivity involved whatsoever. 

that is literally how you measure how big certain brands are, measuring tv viewers + ticket sales + merchandising sales. 

And when doing that, there is no galaxy in this universe or any universe in which Michigan and Notre Dame are not in the top 5 of that. Your top 5 would be Ohio State, Bama, Michigan, Notre Dame, and probably Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 30, 2023, 12:10:25 PM
If someone posted that, though, they wouldn't get much attention beyond "Well, yeah...".  By posting a stupid ranking, one gets noticed.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 30, 2023, 12:14:29 PM
If someone posted that, though, they wouldn't get much attention beyond "Well, yeah...".  By posting a stupid ranking, one gets noticed.
very true. 

in this day and age, everything is just about getting clicks. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 18, 2023, 11:08:04 AM
Alabama is not in the AP top 10. Clemson is unranked.

The world is changing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 11:15:59 AM
yeah, he's an obvious dumbass. Michigan and Notre Dame are both easily top 5 national brands in college football. Dumbfk has Michigan at #16 and ND at #12. Lol.
Having A&M above Texas really brings the lulz as well.  No offense intended to our good friend Gigem.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 11:17:10 AM
Alabama is not in the AP top 10. Clemson is unranked.

The world is changing.
Brands don't change nearly as quickly as the current football landscape.  If it did, then we'd have no designation for "helmet" teams.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on September 18, 2023, 11:34:24 AM
https://twitter.com/On3sports/status/1703407965531672748?s=20
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 12:40:37 PM
Looks like they weigh MOV over total cupcakes pretty highly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on September 18, 2023, 12:41:44 PM
Looks like they weigh MOV over total cupcakes pretty highly.
ESPN FPI and their playoff predictor or whatever the f it's called are both just god awful. but it's from ESPN, so of course it's god awful. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 18, 2023, 01:32:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/a67OQ1f.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 01:36:19 PM
When does Wisconsin play Johns Hopkins in football this year?  Or are they in the other division?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 18, 2023, 01:53:08 PM
Hopkins is a Lacrosse member only.

ND is a member for hockey. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 01:54:27 PM
Hopkins is a Lacrosse member only.

ND is a member for hockey.
I think my point about the silliness of that infographic is made. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 18, 2023, 02:45:10 PM
I think my point about the silliness of that infographic is made. :)


Oh, I dunno....when you look at how FSU destroyed LSU in the 4th quarter, it makes sense LSU would be ranked ahead of the Noles. 

Likewise, Bama > Texas makes sense, if you think about it.....in 4 dimensions, with folded space and a lot of square roots of negative one.

I mean, there's a reason infographics are so widely used.  It's because they're always correct. 



EDIT:  Looks like I'm talking about a different graphic than you were.  I was referencing top 20 list.  But lists are also always correct.  If you don't understand why Michigan is not in the top 20, then you didn't carry the cosine multiplied by half of Thanos' Reality Stone in their most recent game. 

Double Ninja-edit:  Nevermind, Michigan is ranked #14.  Which just proves by their inclusion in the Top 20 and that I missed it, graphics and polls are always infallible, but illiterate, color-blind coon-asses are not necessarily.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 02:56:10 PM
I know why Alabama fans' brains are broken, what's YOUR excuse?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 18, 2023, 02:58:44 PM
I mean, I thought that was implicitly covered in the "illiterate, colorblind, coon-ass" part.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 18, 2023, 03:00:34 PM
I think my point about the silliness of that infographic is made. :)
The point of my post was to simply show that the B1G has a collection of pretty good/great schools.

Including Hopkins in that graphic was just plain dumb, but I didn't make it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 03:01:57 PM
The point of my post was to simply show that the B1G has a collection of pretty good/great schools.

Including Hopkins in that graphic was just plain dumb, but I didn't make it.
I'm just giving you a hard time.  :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 18, 2023, 03:04:22 PM
One of your (and B.R.A.D.) favorite pastimes.

I rather enjoy it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 03:11:19 PM
One of your (and B.R.A.D.) favorite pastimes.

I rather enjoy it.
For some reason Fearless tends to go easy on you and leave you out of his pot stirring.  Somebody has to make up the difference.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 18, 2023, 03:36:49 PM
Looks like they weigh MOV over total cupcakes pretty highly.
Why wouldn’t they? (I assume there’s a specific team this is aimed at?)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 18, 2023, 03:45:21 PM
Why wouldn’t they? (I assume there’s a specific team this is aimed at?)
Because MOV over complete cupcakes is a worthless basis for ranking and comparison?

And yeah, I'm looking at Oklahoma.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 18, 2023, 07:17:15 PM
For some reason Fearless tends to go easy on you and leave you out of his pot stirring.  Somebody has to make up the difference.
I like Badge
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 19, 2023, 12:06:26 AM
Because MOV over complete cupcakes is a worthless basis for ranking and comparison?

And yeah, I'm looking at Oklahoma.


If MOV over cupcakes isn't an important component, then why is everyone freaking out over Alabama?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 19, 2023, 12:09:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/a67OQ1f.png)
Go Gators!
We've got Vandy in our sights.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 19, 2023, 12:11:54 AM
10 hottest chicks in the 90s:
1. Cindy Crawford
2. Catherine Zeta-Jones
3. Sharon Stone
4. Claudia Schiffer
5. Shania Twain
6. Pam Anderson
7. Demi Moore
8. Elizabeth Hurley
9. Denise Richards
10. Salma Hayek
Others receiving votes:  Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elle Macpherson

90s Top 10 (https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-sexiest-women-per-decade-1990s)

I have a lot of opinions on this....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 19, 2023, 06:25:37 AM
10 hottest chicks in the 90s:
1. Cindy Crawford
2. Catherine Zeta-Jones
3. Sharon Stone
4. Claudia Schiffer
5. Shania Twain
6. Pam Anderson
7. Demi Moore
8. Elizabeth Hurley
9. Denise Richards
10. Salma Hayek
Others receiving votes:  Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elle Macpherson

90s Top 10 (https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-sexiest-women-per-decade-1990s)

I have a lot of opinions on this....
Me too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 19, 2023, 12:39:15 PM
10 hottest chicks in the 90s:
1. Cindy Crawford
2. Catherine Zeta-Jones
3. Sharon Stone
4. Claudia Schiffer
5. Shania Twain
6. Pam Anderson
7. Demi Moore
8. Elizabeth Hurley
9. Denise Richards
10. Salma Hayek
Others receiving votes:  Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elle Macpherson

90s Top 10 (https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-sexiest-women-per-decade-1990s)

I have a lot of opinions on this....

I can live with this.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2023, 12:57:57 PM
I mean, there's not a single one on that list I would describe as NOT hot in her prime, so yup, works for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on September 19, 2023, 01:27:33 PM
The 1960s may be all time greatest:

1. Rachel Welsh
2. Marilyn Monroe
3. Sophia Loren
4. Brigitte Bardot
5. Julie Christie
6. Elke Sommer
7. Claudia Cardinale
8. Ursula Andress
9. Sharon Tate
10. Jacqueline Bisset

Numbered but in no particular order.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 19, 2023, 01:59:34 PM
I'm thankful I grew up in the 60s
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2023, 02:15:32 PM
There are lovely ladies of every decade.  It's good to be alive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 19, 2023, 02:17:57 PM
agreed, especially at my age
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on September 19, 2023, 02:37:10 PM
The 1960s may be all time greatest:
disagree. it's just like with athletes. hell with everything. the new ones are better today.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2023, 03:13:12 PM
disagree. it's just like with athletes. hell with everything. the new ones are better today.
Eh.  Again, I'll respond with:

There are lovely ladies of every decade.  It's good to be alive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 19, 2023, 09:37:21 PM
There are lovely ladies of every decade.  It's good to be alive.
Same with college campuses.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 19, 2023, 09:43:05 PM
10 hottest chicks in the 90s:
1. Cindy Crawford
2. Catherine Zeta-Jones
3. Sharon Stone
4. Claudia Schiffer
5. Shania Twain
6. Pam Anderson
7. Demi Moore
8. Elizabeth Hurley
9. Denise Richards
10. Salma Hayek
Others receiving votes:  Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elle Macpherson

90s Top 10 (https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-sexiest-women-per-decade-1990s)

I have a lot of opinions on this....
I could write a full essay on this, but I'll just comment on #1.  
She was the popular supermodel of the decade.  But I wouldn't put her at the top of any "hottest" list.  She was pretty.  Duh.  But she's a supermodel.  She's taller than me.  Very skinny.  Nothing up top.  SHE tops your list?  

As with all this clickbaity crap, popularity plays into it.  That has nothing to do with hotness.  For me, "hotness" requires some 3-dimensionality (ie - bewbs).  No supermodel is the hottest anything, except maybe peak Adrianna Lima.  Idk.

And which Demi Moore is this?  Short-haired pixie w/ the voice of a 60-year old male smoker OR the overly-ripped, giant implants Striptease version?  No thanks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 19, 2023, 10:00:44 PM
I could write a full essay on this, but I'll just comment on #1. 
She was the popular supermodel of the decade.  But I wouldn't put her at the top of any "hottest" list.
I would


(https://i.imgur.com/6SurHFv.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2023, 10:13:31 PM
Same with college campuses. 

Amen brutha.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2023, 12:30:04 AM
its subjective
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 02:06:57 AM
I would


(https://i.imgur.com/6SurHFv.png)
Over prime Denise Richards?

(https://i.imgur.com/45fup3T.jpg)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 20, 2023, 07:36:32 AM
College football rankings: Washington leaps Ohio State, USC to crash top five in CBS Sports 133 - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-rankings-washington-leaps-ohio-state-usc-to-crash-top-five-in-cbs-sports-133/)

I was idly wondering how many rankings exist out there on major sports sites.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 20, 2023, 12:26:15 PM
There are virtually no supermodels taller than me, and even if they were, I don't think that's an issue.

That said, they are not my favorite body type. 

But I don't have an issue with them being on a list like that, because while beauty =/= hotness in my mind, I take it as a beauty list as much as a hot list, and many supermodels are quite beautiful.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 20, 2023, 12:31:31 PM
You already have a very beautiful wife ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 20, 2023, 12:44:24 PM
But she tries to hog the tv when her team plays at the same time as mine, so she doesn't get to be on the list.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 20, 2023, 01:34:34 PM
But she tries to hog the tv when her team plays at the same time as mine, so she doesn't get to be on the list. 
Well after all, UT is more important than LSU.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 20, 2023, 01:40:30 PM
College Football Playoff bowl projections: Pac-12 replaces SEC in 12-team bracket after Week 3 of 2023 season - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-bowl-projections-pac-12-replaces-sec-in-12-team-bracket-after-week-3-of-2023-season/)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 07:22:07 PM
Idk, I think models are like pro athletes in person:  another animal compared to normal humans.

But whoever the "it" model is at any given time, it isn't based on them being hotter than any other model.  It's often whoever an editor or photographer decides they want to shine a spotlight on.  There is nothing wrong with Cindy Crawford, but if you took 100 random other models, about half would be "hotter" and half not, if everyone was anonymous.  

Take Kathy Ireland.  She's about as ho-hum as you can get for a model.  But the moment she's on SI's swimsuit issue, her career blows up.  Not for any other reason than widespread exposure.  

They're all hot.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 20, 2023, 08:40:49 PM
Over prime Denise Richards?
YUP!

 (https://media0.giphy.com/media/MzId7vT7YOUzm/200.gif) 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on September 20, 2023, 08:50:05 PM
I dunno Cindy Crawford was about as objectively hot as one can get.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 09:00:58 PM
Yeah, where ya going to find another skinny brunette with B-cups?  :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 20, 2023, 09:06:23 PM
Not arm-n-arm with a Gator Guy 😍
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on September 20, 2023, 09:19:49 PM
Yeah, where ya going to find another skinny brunette with B-cups?  :57:
Like Cindy Crawford? They are still looking, my man.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 09:59:18 PM
lol
Put her in the swimsuit edition and give her some commercials and she's the end-all, be-all.
There are 10,000 random youtube/tik tok/etc chicks just as hot.  But they're anonymous.  So they're magically not as hot. 

Pop culture indoctrination.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on September 20, 2023, 10:02:08 PM
lol
Put her in the swimsuit edition and give her some commercials and she's the end-all, be-all.
There are 10,000 random youtube/tik tok/etc chicks just as hot.  But they're anonymous.  So they're magically not as hot.

Pop culture indoctrination.
Hey, I get it. Maybe the girl you like down the street is just as hot as Cindy Crawford. But maybe not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 10:13:16 PM
Hey, I get it. Maybe the girl you like down the street is just as hot as Cindy Crawford. But maybe not.
Every graduating class in every school in the country has a Cindy Crawford.  
But,
does she want to rely on her looks as a career?
does she get "discovered?"
does she work her way up while being poor?
does she catch a big break?
does a famous photographer/editor think she's special?
does she get in front of enough eyeballs to become a "thing?"
does she get lucky?
.
Cindy Crawford wins a popularity contest, hands down.  
Her story is special.  Her looks are not (when compared to models, etc - of course).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on September 20, 2023, 10:24:16 PM

Quote
Every graduating class in every school in the country has a Cindy Crawford. 
I don't recall my graduating class having Cindy Crawford.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2023, 10:44:52 PM
Sigh.
Every school with a certain population threshold.  
Let's set it at 1,000.  

You are exasperating.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2023, 11:31:05 PM
I don't recall my graduating class having Cindy Crawford.

53 kids in my graduating class of 1981
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 06:42:21 AM
There was one girl in HS who was runnerup in the Teen USA pageant, and she was very pretty, and smart, but a couple others were as well.

Terry something was her name.  She had a close friend who won the HS beauty pageant, Terry didn't enter.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on September 21, 2023, 06:51:54 AM
53 kids in my graduating class of 1981
How many Cindy Crawfords
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 07:25:01 AM
You know what makes me mad?  I should make a ranking.

I was musing yesterday, I went to the track and ran my butt off and my watch said "Great, you burned 600 Calories.".  Only 476 were due to the exercise apparently.

Some poll asked folks if they were better drivers than average and 76% said they were.  I have a problem with the 24%.

Folks will drive out to see "Fall colors" when they can usually see them by walking around the neighborhood.

Cars go by on occasion not only blaring horrible "music" but also with no mufflers.  

Not knowing how best to help a homeless person.

The number of years I spent getting an "education" and how little I knew once I had it.  I suspect I still don't know much, but don't really care.  

Apathy.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 21, 2023, 08:06:22 AM
lol
Put her in the swimsuit edition and give her some commercials and she's the end-all, be-all.
There are 10,000 random youtube/tik tok/etc chicks just as hot.  But they're anonymous.  So they're magically not as hot.

Pop culture indoctrination.
Well then maybe they're bimbos for not capitalizing & recognize opportunity ya know like NIL
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 21, 2023, 09:02:13 AM
Someone on the internet has an opinion that differs from mine but because I always feel I must present my own opinions as facts, it's making me mad!

Internet slap fight ensues.

Wow, opinions man.  Killer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 09:26:15 AM
Not sure I get the point of arguing about something that's objectively not objective.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 09:35:39 AM
Not sure I get the point of arguing about something that's objectively not objective. 
I disagree vehemently ...  I think.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 21, 2023, 09:56:48 AM
Not sure I get the point of arguing about something that's objectively not objective. 
What else would we do then?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 09:59:35 AM
What's an example of an entirely objective matter about which one can argue?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 21, 2023, 10:04:42 AM
What's an example of an entirely objective matter about which one can argue?
Oh, I suppose there are some areas of politics, or more specifically public policy, where we could do this.

For example, if we're talking about a semi-socialistic healthcare program, and we both agree on objective portions of the plan-- we know the costs, who's paying for it, and what the expected benefits are-- but we DON'T agree on the ideals behind the policy, then we could have an objective argument about it.  If I'm a small-government libertarian and you're a more socialistic democrat, then we can objectively agree on the facts of the program, and still disagree on whether or not it's an appropriate use of resources.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 10:08:44 AM
So, we don't argue about the objective parts, just the subjective and opinion based parts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 21, 2023, 10:19:54 AM
What's an example of an entirely objective matter about which one can argue?
The existence of the supernatural?

It's perfect, because it seems to be unknowable, which means that although it's perfectly objective (it exists or it doesn't) we can argue it forever. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 10:30:39 AM
What's an example of an entirely objective matter about which one can argue?

History, I suppose.


The events have been recorded in various sources throughout the years, and the writings are pretty much objectively understood and agreed upon, but then people may disagree about the veracity of the authors, or more likely, "what it means."  Philosophy of history, I guess.  

Many STEM fields are like that too.  Every physicist knows the latest findings in QM, they "agree" on the experiments, results, and facts.  There's also like 9 most "popular" takes on what the heck it means.  

Or medical stuff.  Lab results, imaging results, symptoms, etc., are all objective.  Ask 5 different doctors what's going on and you get 5 different opinions.  


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 10:33:01 AM
The existence of the supernatural?

It's perfect, because it seems to be unknowable, which means that although it's perfectly objective (it exists or it doesn't) we can argue it forever.

It's my favorite subject. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 10:46:04 AM
Those items have objective aspects about which no one argues.  They do argue about interpretation, "opinion", which is subjective.

I suppose it's semantics.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 21, 2023, 10:56:05 AM
Those items have objective aspects about which no one argues.  They do argue about interpretation, "opinion", which is subjective.

I suppose it's semantics.



I could argue that a body of water is blue-green.  You could disagree and say it's greenish-blue.  It is objectively whatever color it is, based on its physical characteristics, the ground beneath it, the depth of the water, the time of day, the amount and angle of light hitting it, etc.

But we could still argue about the color, and that argument would still be dumb.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 11:04:38 AM
Human perceptions are subjective, depending on those factors.  And water generally is colorless unless it contains a lot of impurities.

I could measure objectively the absorbance spectrum of said body of water, that would be substantive.    I think we're arguimg about subjective matters.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 21, 2023, 11:35:04 AM
It's my favorite subject.
It's a quick study.  Here is the entirety of falsifiable evidence of the supernatural:  ______.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 21, 2023, 11:39:40 AM
Not sure I get the point of arguing about something that's objectively not objective. 
When does it become an argument, though?
1 - I share list X.
2 - I comment on it, simply sharing my opinion.
3 - Another person does the same, but with a different opinion.
4 - I provide reasons for my opinion.
5 - They do the same.

I wouldn't call it an argument until a #6 where maybe I provide reasons their opinion is wrong.  Before then, it's just a conversation.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 11:45:25 AM
It's a quick study.  Here is the entirety of falsifiable evidence of the supernatural:  ______.

I'm well aware of your ignorance on the topic. 

but srsly, it's a good example of what we're talking about.  The evidence is just the evidence.  What it means is going to depend on how you view many different things.  Different people reasonably arrive at either conclusion, although obviously I think the evidence strongly leans in favor of one over the other.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 21, 2023, 11:50:21 AM
What evidence?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 01:16:26 PM
What evidence?

That's a broad question, so I'd probably narrow it down to categories.  There's literally dozens, but there are some popular ones that have been debated for decades and even centuries now.  Start with what's commonly known as the cosmological argument; the beginning of the universe.  This wasn't always heavily corroborated by the latest scientific findings (think: Einstein, who is relatively recent, and initially preferred a static model of the universe),  but the universe having an absolute beginning is widely accepted now.  There's a ton of evidence for that, from both the scientific and philosophy communities.  But what does it mean?  There's the rub.  Something not in or part of the universe caused the universe to come into being, but what?  "Something not in or part of the universe" would be one working definition of "supernatural" so I'd argue that it doesn't really matter which view you side with, it technically is "supernatural."  Both sides are forced to extrapolate a list of qualities that must necessarily belong to such a cause, but they don't agree on all of them, or who or what it is.  One example is Stephen Hawking's view later in his life, that gravity caused the universe to come into being.  If you wade through the details of his explanation, what he actually does is assign to gravity nearly all the qualities a religious person would assign to a deity, excepting personhood.  So there's a lot of agreement on the evidence, but different conclusions drawn.  This is a 50,000 ft. overview....I'm skipping a literal ton here, like I said, it's one of my favorite topics.

A second popular argument is the teleological argument, or what could be called the design argument.  The evidence not in dispute is an ever-growing, very long list of characteristics about the universe that are extraordinarily fine-tined for there to be a universe at all, and in particular one that can support life.  The meaning, again, is in dispute.  Briefly, an atheistic view tends to argue one of two things, either it's blind chance that everything is fine-tuned the way that it is, or they appeal to a multiverse theory, stating that this universe is one of many, possibly an infinite number, and so one of them somewhere was bound to have these characteristics.  The theist view will of course argue for a grand designer, so to speak.  But they're arguing from the same evidence.

A third popular one is the moral argument.  This one is different in a couple of ways.  First, it's nearly strictly philosophical as it doesn't appeal to science like the first two.  Second, the evidence sort of is and isn't in dispute.  What I mean by that is the "evidence" in this case is an objective morality, something that transcends our opinions and is true whether one believes it or not, and atheistic views often deny that while theistic views tend to (not always) affirm it.  Where it gets tricky is that when atheist philosophers are really pressed on it, they often do ultimately want to affirm objective morality, meaning they see some things as actually, truly wrong, which are not just matters of opinion, evolution, or societal norms.  But they either fail to see the contradiction, or they admit they have a problem and that the problem may not be intractable and shouldn't be given up on.  Or put another way, theists frequently argue that there is an objective morality to our existence and that the source is supernatural, whereas atheists frequently argue either there is no objective morality, or that there is, and try to advocate for alternative explanations outside of something supernatural (though they admirably admit shortcomings here, which is why I say their position is sometimes that while they have a problem, they shouldn't give up on it).  So it's a little disingenuous to say there's evidence not in dispute in that realm.  Nevertheless, there is evidence either side produces for why there is or isn't objective morality, and then of course the different views drawn from either of those positions.  

Those are just the most popular 3 areas, in my opinion, where there's evidence--generally agreed upon--but differing conclusions.  There are a ton of other areas of arguments with the same thing.....some evidence from some discipline which theists and atheists try to explain in different ways.  Alvin Plantinga, formerly of Notre Dame, successfully defended over two dozen arguments in his career, many of which get extremely esoteric and beyond what the average layman can follow.  He's just one of many, and of course there are atheistic proponents such as Daniel Dennett and many others, who attempt to tackle the same subjects, the same evidence as it were, and show that atheism more reasonably explains it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 21, 2023, 01:47:52 PM
Of course, in the Christian religion, they're going to advocate for the resurrection of Jesus, the focal point of the religion.  This qualifies, I think, as a claim to the supernatural, because dead things don't come back to life naturally.  

The evidence in that case is wide and varied, but there is what some have come to call the minimal facts of this matter, those being facts of history that every historian agrees on.  When I say "every," I mean as far as I have ever come across, there's not a single serious historian that denies one of these, no matter their religious worldview.....and many of them, it should be noted, are not religious and would deny anything supernatural as ardently as anyone.  The reason why they coherently affirm these is because there is nothing inherently supernatural about them.  

First, that a first century rabbi from the Nazareth region of Judea named Jesus (I mean....that wasn't his name, but that's how it's been transliterated by this point) was crucified by Roman soldiers.  Second, his body was buried by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin court, a guy named Joseph of Arimethea (again, his name wasn't actually Joseph).  Third, that the tomb was discovered empty a couple of days after his burial.  Fourth, that his followers suddenly and sincerely came to believe their rabbi had come back to life.  

There's a lot more historical facts surrounding the resurrection story that have wide agreement, but these are just the universally agreed-upon ones.  Note again, nothing about any of them means anything supernatural actually happened.  To that point, different theories--about 7 that I know of( though I can't list them all from memory)--have been put forward in an effort to best explain those 4 facts.  Some of them are the conspiracy theory, i.e., the disciples lied and made the whole thing up...the swoon theory, i.e., Jesus never actually died, the Romans believed him to be dead but failed to complete the job, and later he was able to get up and walk around, etc.....the hallucination theory, i.e., his followers sincerely believed they saw their dead rabbi, but hallucinated the whole thing....the legendary theory, i.e., the disciples made no such claims about a resurrected messiah and these claims were added later in history, or, someone invented a legend about it.  There's a few more I don't remember.  And of course finally there would be the resurrection theory, which is what Christians believe.  

In this case the 4 minimal facts would be the evidence.  Explaining that evidence is a different matter, and obviously people draw different conclusions from it.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on September 21, 2023, 02:11:09 PM
Regarding the existence of God...

I think about this a lot.  If, and that's a big IF, a God creates the universe and all that is within it including the laws of physics and all the atoms and quarks and dark energy and the whole shebang I've always wondered.....where did God come from?  I mean, alpha and omega aside, how did he come into being......is there a higher God that rules over our God?  And if there is a higher God, who made this God?  



And if, another big IF, there was a "Big Bang" and that's what started it all....what came before the Big Bang to make the stuff the Big Bang came from.  And my understanding is that ever since the Big Bang the universe is expanding...but I've often wondered....expanding into WHAT?  

Imagine if we could just answer only 1 of the questions from above.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 21, 2023, 02:12:50 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/25chRBr.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on September 21, 2023, 02:28:15 PM
10 hottest chicks in the 90s:
1. Cindy Crawford
2. Catherine Zeta-Jones
3. Sharon Stone
4. Claudia Schiffer
5. Shania Twain
6. Pam Anderson
7. Demi Moore
8. Elizabeth Hurley
9. Denise Richards
10. Salma Hayek
Others receiving votes:  Alyssa Milano, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elle Macpherson

90s Top 10 (https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-sexiest-women-per-decade-1990s)

I have a lot of opinions on this....
I could get behind every chick on this list, and the others receiving votes too.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on September 21, 2023, 02:30:04 PM
Every graduating class in every school in the country has a Cindy Crawford. 
But,
does she want to rely on her looks as a career?
does she get "discovered?"
does she work her way up while being poor?
does she catch a big break?
does a famous photographer/editor think she's special?
does she get in front of enough eyeballs to become a "thing?"
does she get lucky?
.
Cindy Crawford wins a popularity contest, hands down. 
Her story is special.  Her looks are not (when compared to models, etc - of course).
Sure, there are 10,000 girls almost as pretty as her....but close don't count.  

But I'm with you, she's not at the top of my list, but definitely on it.  Agree to disagree on Kathy Ireland.  

Denise Richardson is near the top of my list.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 21, 2023, 02:59:59 PM
What I've always wondered...




Which leads me to...



If it's the former, then I'll see y'all in heaven. If it's the latter, well, who would want to believe in that asshole God anyway?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 21, 2023, 03:02:23 PM
I will say that I agree with OAM in that, if it's 1995 and Denise Richards walks up to me alongside Cindy Crawford and they state, "utee94, you can hook up with one and only one of us right now" then 1995 utee94 is going to choose Denise Richards.

However, that doesn't mean that young utee94 isn't wishing he could also hook up with Cindy Crawford.

And I'm willing to concede that others' opinions on this entirely subjective matter could differ, and they might pick Cindy over Denise in that case.

Obviously, the best answer is:

(https://i.imgur.com/DE6jyJG.png)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on September 21, 2023, 04:46:58 PM
I saw a bumper sticker that read

God is coming and boy is She pissed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 21, 2023, 04:58:05 PM


And I'm willing to concede that others' opinions on this entirely subjective matter could differ, and they might pick Cindy over Denise in that case.

Obviously, the best answer is:

(https://i.imgur.com/DE6jyJG.png)
You're well paid but you don't make that much
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 21, 2023, 05:02:00 PM
53 kids in my graduating class of 1981
How many Cindy Crawfords
Fearless had the girls from Hee Haw - including Minnie Pearl and Lulu Roman - SA-LUTE
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 21, 2023, 05:07:49 PM


In fact, his preordained plan thus must be that I was to be an atheist, to *NOT* accept Jesus as my savior, and his plan is responsible for that and every other thing that has occurred in my life. I have no autonomy in any of it.



If God accepts that he has made me flawed as I am, then a benevolent God would not punish me with eternal damnation simply for doing what he literally created me to do, and cannot choose otherwise.

I've heard alot about God and Jesus at the Cleveland-Pittsburgh Games and the Race Track
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 21, 2023, 05:21:41 PM
Fearless had the girls from Hee Haw - including Minnie Pearl and Lulu Roman - SA-LUTE
(https://victoriahallman.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/article.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 21, 2023, 05:32:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/HgEU7OU.png)
Talented woman - comedian and singer
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 21, 2023, 05:50:11 PM
One concept of a Creator is that It exists outside of time, something hard to imagine.

But consider a 2 dimensional universe that "we" created and it was translating through our 3rd dimension.  For us, there is only left and right, for them it would be "time".  We could see it all, and there would no question about "when" we existed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 21, 2023, 09:38:07 PM
That's a broad question, so I'd probably narrow it down to categories.  There's literally dozens, but there are some popular ones that have been debated for decades and even centuries now.  Start with what's commonly known as the cosmological argument; the beginning of the universe.  This wasn't always heavily corroborated by the latest scientific findings (think: Einstein, who is relatively recent, and initially preferred a static model of the universe),  but the universe having an absolute beginning is widely accepted now.  There's a ton of evidence for that, from both the scientific and philosophy communities.  But what does it mean?  There's the rub.  Something not in or part of the universe caused the universe to come into being, but what?  "Something not in or part of the universe" would be one working definition of "supernatural" so I'd argue that it doesn't really matter which view you side with, it technically is "supernatural."  Both sides are forced to extrapolate a list of qualities that must necessarily belong to such a cause, but they don't agree on all of them, or who or what it is.  One example is Stephen Hawking's view later in his life, that gravity caused the universe to come into being.  If you wade through the details of his explanation, what he actually does is assign to gravity nearly all the qualities a religious person would assign to a deity, excepting personhood.  So there's a lot of agreement on the evidence, but different conclusions drawn.  This is a 50,000 ft. overview....I'm skipping a literal ton here, like I said, it's one of my favorite topics.

A second popular argument is the teleological argument, or what could be called the design argument.  The evidence not in dispute is an ever-growing, very long list of characteristics about the universe that are extraordinarily fine-tined for there to be a universe at all, and in particular one that can support life.  The meaning, again, is in dispute.  Briefly, an atheistic view tends to argue one of two things, either it's blind chance that everything is fine-tuned the way that it is, or they appeal to a multiverse theory, stating that this universe is one of many, possibly an infinite number, and so one of them somewhere was bound to have these characteristics.  The theist view will of course argue for a grand designer, so to speak.  But they're arguing from the same evidence.

A third popular one is the moral argument.  This one is different in a couple of ways.  First, it's nearly strictly philosophical as it doesn't appeal to science like the first two.  Second, the evidence sort of is and isn't in dispute.  What I mean by that is the "evidence" in this case is an objective morality, something that transcends our opinions and is true whether one believes it or not, and atheistic views often deny that while theistic views tend to (not always) affirm it.  Where it gets tricky is that when atheist philosophers are really pressed on it, they often do ultimately want to affirm objective morality, meaning they see some things as actually, truly wrong, which are not just matters of opinion, evolution, or societal norms.  But they either fail to see the contradiction, or they admit they have a problem and that the problem may not be intractable and shouldn't be given up on.  Or put another way, theists frequently argue that there is an objective morality to our existence and that the source is supernatural, whereas atheists frequently argue either there is no objective morality, or that there is, and try to advocate for alternative explanations outside of something supernatural (though they admirably admit shortcomings here, which is why I say their position is sometimes that while they have a problem, they shouldn't give up on it).  So it's a little disingenuous to say there's evidence not in dispute in that realm.  Nevertheless, there is evidence either side produces for why there is or isn't objective morality, and then of course the different views drawn from either of those positions. 

Those are just the most popular 3 areas, in my opinion, where there's evidence--generally agreed upon--but differing conclusions.  There are a ton of other areas of arguments with the same thing.....some evidence from some discipline which theists and atheists try to explain in different ways.  Alvin Plantinga, formerly of Notre Dame, successfully defended over two dozen arguments in his career, many of which get extremely esoteric and beyond what the average layman can follow.  He's just one of many, and of course there are atheistic proponents such as Daniel Dennett and many others, who attempt to tackle the same subjects, the same evidence as it were, and show that atheism more reasonably explains it.

So an argument isn't evidence.  Evidence is evidence.  I know, I know, it sounds like I'm throwing your big, lost post out the window, but I'm really not.
Okay, so the universe started, and the cosmological argument suggests something started it.  But believers like to leap to someONE, which is B.S.  But even positing a creator for it all isn't evidence.  WHAT creator?  Don't know?  Not evidence.
.
Teleological argument?  Sorry, but that one is embarrassing.  See:  puddle analogy.  Of course this world seems designed, we exist in it.  The teleological argument treats the universe like a snapshot and ignores the billions of years of primordial hot garbage.  Yes,  in the past 100 years, things seem so convenient for us.  As if the creators of this sidewalk made a shallow lull so our wet puddles asses fit right in. 
You're better than this one.
.
It's funny, the moral argument is where I believe religion was born in the first place.  There was no objective morality, just the biggest, baddest got what they wanted.  Invent a god that is watching and judging them (unfaslifiable) and that they will be punished after death (unfalsifiable).  The warlords were dumb enough to fall for it, and thus religion was born.
It's hard to say there's no objective morality when you're raised in a society with generations of legal morality baked in.
.
But as you've acknowledged, and I give you credit for doing so, is that all of your "evidences" are disputed and maybes.  None of it's confirmed.  You know what "evidence" means, and none of these is actually evidence.  It's possibilities.  It's hopefulness.  It's want-to.
The next real, tangible evidence for a god will be the first. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 21, 2023, 09:43:00 PM
What I've always wondered...


  • God is omniscient and omnipotent.
  • God knows the past, the present, and the future (being omniscient). To think that God's knowledge is limited by the constraints of traveling through geological time is not giving him true omniscience.
  • This would imply that God knows in advance every decision I make in my life, because for me to make any decision contrary to God's knowledge would make Him wrong, and being omniscient he cannot be wrong.
  • This means that there cannot be such a thing as "free will", because I can only make the decisions God has already known I will make.
  • God created the universe. He is omnipotent, so he could choose to make the universe in any way he likes.
  • He clearly liked the one he made, hence why the religious always talk about things, bad or good, being "God's plan".
  • Since he is omniscient and omnipotent, his PLAN for the universe is such that every sin I commit, he has preordained that I will commit, and that I have no free will to do (or think) otherwise.
  • In fact, his preordained plan thus must be that I was to be an atheist, to *NOT* accept Jesus as my savior, and his plan is responsible for that and every other thing that has occurred in my life. I have no autonomy in any of it.


Which leads me to...

  • If God accepts that he has made me flawed as I am, then a benevolent God would not punish me with eternal damnation simply for doing what he literally created me to do, and cannot choose otherwise.
  • If God, knowing he full well could have created a universe where I either didn't commit the sins he is holding me accountable for, or chosen to create a universe where I never existed (and thus didn't need to be punished), STILL chooses to punish me with eternal damnation? Well, then God is an ass.


If it's the former, then I'll see y'all in heaven. If it's the latter, well, who would want to believe in that asshole God anyway?
Maybe he should've created a universe with no atheists. 
Or one without slavery.
Or if it's the christian god, maybe put that slavery is bad in your book.
Or maybe avoid explaining how to own slaves in your book.

It's all a sick joke.  Tradition.  Threats of suffering and promises of grandeur.  Gross.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 22, 2023, 06:00:11 AM
I don't really understand why folks want to convince others they have the answer when it comes to religion.  I understand some forms of Christianity are evangelical, OK, got it, but I'd think atheists by and large would be OK with allowing others to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they so choose, and don't bother the atheists.

I also think if any of us grew up in Japan or Pakistan or India or preColumbian South America, we'd likely believe something different.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 22, 2023, 06:06:02 AM
I was once out working on my car when this elderly fellow in a suit walks up.  Turns out he was a JW.  He said a few things and gave me some leaflet (which I glanced at and tossed).  As it was a hot day, I offered him a glass of water, outside.  OK, he said.

A couple weeks later he shows up again, I'm out in the yard, he has a young female in tow, and invites me to their weekly seance and gives me another pamphlet, I'm a bit more brusque this time, but he leaves, no big deal.  He showed up a last time now with a young male in tow and invites me, and I say I'm busy thanks, close the door.  He never showed again, no big deal to me.

I read a paragraph or two on line about JWism just out of curiosity, don't recall any of it now.  I've heard folks say they can get annoying.  I'm old enough to recall the Hare Krishnas in various airports singing and chanting.  There isn't any of that sort of thing around here that I've noted.  A couple of churches have gay flags flying outside, most I'd say do not.  This used to be a kind of "church row" as it was heavily residential, and the churches still stand amidst the sky scrapers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 22, 2023, 06:54:32 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/siMAHUi.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 22, 2023, 07:56:57 AM
Nebraska 42?

Volleyball must be making more money than I thought 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 22, 2023, 08:09:00 AM
One of these is not like the others.

(https://i.imgur.com/wZhC2DZ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 22, 2023, 08:24:33 AM
What is meant by "donor"?  They have donors?  They are donors?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 22, 2023, 08:27:43 AM
I'd like to have some context

if it's athletic dollars per year, then Nebraska is doing a helluva job with little help from donors

maybe dollars going to past fired coaches doesn't count?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 22, 2023, 08:37:42 AM
What is meant by "donor"?  They have donors?  They are donors? 
Caption is misleading. It's the amount of money donated TO each school over the years.

Oregon has Uncle Phil. oSu had T-Bone. Neither has a playoff appearance, along with Florida, Texas and aTm.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 22, 2023, 08:42:04 AM
Kinda hard to believe Ohio State at 11.  I don't really know what to make of the ranking, which is fine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 22, 2023, 08:42:54 AM
We can argue about it, which is the point.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 22, 2023, 08:49:51 AM
it's just another stoopid ranking with no detail on what or why
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on September 22, 2023, 09:48:38 AM
One of these is not like the others.

(https://i.imgur.com/wZhC2DZ.png)
two them are not like the others. Oregon and Oklahoma State have no business ever being good, but they both have old crusty geriatric prehistoric aged bored billionaires who are super-fans and way too into their college teams being good so they've both went overboard and to the extreme as fuuuuucccch trying to buy success for their teams. At that point- just go buy an NFL team bro.

Michigan at only 15 is kinda sad. They probably have a significantly wealthier alumni base than every school ahead of them on that list except for maybe the Texas schools- and even then they're still probably pretty close. Time for them to hit up their billionaires. What are we doing here guys? F the academics, let's win some god damn football games fellas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 22, 2023, 10:09:19 AM
Regarding the existence of God...

I think about this a lot.  If, and that's a big IF, a God creates the universe and all that is within it including the laws of physics and all the atoms and quarks and dark energy and the whole shebang I've always wondered.....where did God come from?  I mean, alpha and omega aside, how did he come into being......is there a higher God that rules over our God?  And if there is a higher God, who made this God? 



And if, another big IF, there was a "Big Bang" and that's what started it all....what came before the Big Bang to make the stuff the Big Bang came from.  And my understanding is that ever since the Big Bang the universe is expanding...but I've often wondered....expanding into WHAT? 

Imagine if we could just answer only 1 of the questions from above. 

How badly do you want me to derail this thread?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 22, 2023, 10:15:48 AM
two them are not like the others. Oregon and Oklahoma State have no business ever being good, but they both have old crusty geriatric prehistoric aged bored billionaires who are super-fans and way too into their college teams being good so they've both went overboard and to the extreme as fuuuuucccch trying to buy success for their teams. At that point- just go buy an NFL team bro.

Michigan at only 15 is kinda sad. They probably have a significantly wealthier alumni base than every school ahead of them on that list except for maybe the Texas schools- and even then they're still probably pretty close. Time for them to hit up their billionaires. What are we doing here guys? F the academics, let's win some god damn football games fellas.

Some of these numbers clearly include donations to capital improvement projects-- upgrades/renovations/rebuilds of stadiums, practice fields, other infrastructure.

So if Michigan hasn't undergone a major capital improvement campaign in the last 10 years or so, there's no way they're going to rank toward the top.  A&M spent over $600M on their major stadium rebuild, UT something like $250M, and I know Oregon just spent a fortune completely redoing their lockers/weight room/practice facilities.  Don't know about the others but Oklahoma State is quite obviously T.  Boone related.

So just keep in mind, these are not donations to operational expenses, these are almost entirely donations to fund capital programs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 22, 2023, 10:16:15 AM
What I've always wondered...

Man, I'd love to kill some time with you if this is the stuff you like to think about.  You've outlined a fairly well-known dilemma, or objection.  Just processing your version quickly, it's not logically fallacious, but it is missing some pertinent info that would change things.

Unfortunately it's way too much to type.  I teach a whole class on this stuff, I can't force-fit it into several paragraphs.  I'm trying to think of a good book that covers different views of this, but off the top of my head I'm drawing a blank.  If you were interested in further reading, I'll give you a rec if I think of one.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 22, 2023, 10:57:58 AM
Man, I'd love to kill some time with you if this is the stuff you like to think about.  You've outlined a fairly well-known dilemma, or objection.  Just processing your version quickly, it's not logically fallacious, but it is missing some pertinent info that would change things.

Unfortunately it's way too much to type.  I teach a whole class on this stuff, I can't force-fit it into several paragraphs.  I'm trying to think of a good book that covers different views of this, but off the top of my head I'm drawing a blank.  If you were interested in further reading, I'll give you a rec if I think of one. 
Don't really want to dig into it too much. Something to ponder over a case of beer, not over a message board. I was just stirring the pot to see who would get sucked in. 

I minored in philosophy and one of the classes I took was Philosophy of Religion. First half of the semester was hitting all of the logical arguments for the existence of god (incl the cosmological and teleological, not sure if the third was objective morality or something else), all of which are lacking and non-persuasive. The second half of the semester was hitting all of the logical arguments against the existence of god, all of which are lacking and non-persuasive. I don't think you can "logically" prove or disprove God. 

In essence, it's an argument I don't personally spend a lot of time on any longer (online or offline), as it ultimately ends up pointless. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone on either side "convinced" by logical argument. And I've outgrown my "angry atheist" phase, so I don't like poking religious people in the eye like so many atheists do. I just quietly go around my business. 

I spent a lot of time around that dilemma back when I took that philosophy class. At one point I thought I might have found a way out of it, but I've forgotten what it is now lol...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on September 22, 2023, 11:33:28 AM
So an argument isn't evidence.  Evidence is evidence.  I know, I know, it sounds like I'm throwing your big, lost post out the window, but I'm really not.
Okay, so the universe started, and the cosmological argument suggests something started it.  But believers like to leap to someONE, which is B.S.  But even positing a creator for it all isn't evidence.  WHAT creator?  Don't know?  Not evidence.

You seem to be confused on what "evidence" is.  You're using the word evidence but asking for a decision on it  That's not what's offered, and that's not the basis for either side.  Similar to a court case, evidence is presented, and the evidence doesn't say anything.  People who judge the evidence based on their best logical thinking and extrapolations say something.....they judge evidence and draw a conclusion.  The evidence is just the evidence.  You frequently get two different people looking at the same evidence in a criminal trial who draw two different conclusions.  Why?  The evidence was the same.  In a court case, evidence should suggest something beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not proof of something.  In the case of the cosmological argument, no one is leaping.....not either side.  They are both looking at the evidence and then drawing their best conclusion about how to best explain the evidence.  You characterize believers as "leaping" but this isn't the case at all, and either you're unfamiliar with their claims--I didn't outline their claims, only their conclusions, and I don't believe you've ever taken the time to examine their reasons--or you just reject them out of hand.  Atheists are also drawing conclusions from the same evidence, but also like the theists, what they are NOT doing is making something up in a leap from evidence to conclusion.  They're trying to best explain the exact same evidence.  If you don't understand how any of it counts as evidence, well, it means you have never properly engaged in the long history of literature about the matter.  
.
Teleological argument?  Sorry, but that one is embarrassing.  See:  puddle analogy.  Of course this world seems designed, we exist in it.  The teleological argument treats the universe like a snapshot and ignores the billions of years of primordial hot garbage.  Yes,  in the past 100 years, things seem so convenient for us.  As if the creators of this sidewalk made a shallow lull so our wet puddles asses fit right in. 
You're better than this one.

Now, unfortunately, you have really demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the subject matter.  You've hit on a very common objection, but not a good one, and pop-level atheists who try to use it do not fare well in debates and their writings are widely rejected by serious philosophers of the subject....even the atheist ones.  I'm not going to say something like "you're better than that" because again, I am positive you aren't even close to as familiar with these subjects as I am.  I do wish one day you'd really examine the best arguments for both sides rather than just rejecting things out of hand.  Not everything that seems a no-brainer actually is.  You don't know what you don't know.  I think you probably have no idea the amount of study, work, debates, and critical thinking that has gone on for centuries about this stuff.  Which is a shame.....you might enjoy it.  Without you knowing any more about it than you do, I realize I'm not giving you much here other than a summary of where the two sides stand and not offering any of the substantive content that accounts for why the two main sides think what they think, and that's because, well, it's just way too much to type.  I'll try to drop a quick arrow in the dirt and say that the crux of the problem with what you've said here is there's an implicit assumption that life could be anything.  We're here, so of course we fit in this universe.  Meaning some other kind of life could've/would've evolved in another universe.  The problem here is two-fold.  From a physics perspective, I don't think you understand the fine-tuning of the physical constants, just to use one area among, many, many, many.  Most universes would not permit matter as we know it and it's mind-bogglingly unlikely that this one does.  So how does some other life evolve in a world without elements?  Most people recognize that as a problem.  Secondly, from a biological perspective, it needs to be shown that something other than carbon-based life is possible, and the experiments dealing with other elements as a basis for life have not yielded promising results.  The assumption that whatever chemicals a universe does allow us will result in "life," let alone advanced life, is not one that can be supported from what is currently known about what's required for biological life.  As far as "we" know....it was this or bust.  Consider a quote from Fred Hoyle, prominent Cambridge astronomer and physicist:  "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.  The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."  Fred Hoyle, by the way, was an atheist.  There are many, many atheists of high education who entered this realm in their careers, and none of them reject the idea of fine-tuning.  What they dispute is the cause of the fine-tuning observed, but they all acknowledge the necessity of an explanation for it.  Unfortunately I don't think you're aware of that. 
.
It's funny, the moral argument is where I believe religion was born in the first place.  There was no objective morality, just the biggest, baddest got what they wanted.  Invent a god that is watching and judging them (unfaslifiable) and that they will be punished after death (unfalsifiable).  The warlords were dumb enough to fall for it, and thus religion was born.
It's hard to say there's no objective morality when you're raised in a society with generations of legal morality baked in. 

Again, you simply don't seem to be aware of the long, rich history of work, thought, and debate about this.  I suppose you don't realize that you're far from the first person to have ever thought that, and that that idea has been explored.  At any rate, the worst flaw of that "rebuttal" is that it completely dodges the question.  It says nothing about whether there's actually an objective morality, and if so, where does it come from?  All you've done here is commit the genetic fallacy, which is an attempt to explain something away by showing where it comes from.  So I won't spend time agreeing or refuting it, because explaining where the idea of morality comes from is an entirely separate issue than whether it's real and what the source might be.  And before you that you committed the fallacy of circular reasoning when you stated "There was no objective morality," which is what you're trying to argue for, thus assuming your conclusion, thus, circular reasoning.  This isn't a rebuttal, only an opinion that you don't like the moral argument.  
.
But as you've acknowledged, and I give you credit for doing so, is that all of your "evidences" are disputed and maybes.  None of it's confirmed.  You know what "evidence" means, and none of these is actually evidence.  It's possibilities.  It's hopefulness.  It's want-to.
The next real, tangible evidence for a god will be the first.

This leads me ask what is YOUR criteria for belief?  And is it a reasonable one?  What evidence do you think needs to be present for one to reasonably assume some sort of theistic position?  This is a rhetorical question and I'm not looking for an answer.  Just posing you the question to think about.  It's one thing to hand-wave everything away, it's another to honestly ask yourself what standard should be met, and if it were, would I change my mind?  I'd like to say in advance, this one gets tricky.  What tends to happen here is atheists I talk to, once they've thought about it, usually come up with whatever they think God (or anything like him) should do, or demonstrate, or have done in the past, in order to meet their criteria for belief.  In other words, they want God to be whatever they think he is, and then prove THAT.  What they almost never do is seriously engage religious claims on their own terms.  For example, if one wanted to investigate the Christian God, then you can't just make up whatever character you think God should have and then set your criteria.  You have to take that God on his own terms, i.e., what is the character and nature of God generally understood and agreed on by the teaching of that religion, and THEN assess whether such a deity can meet the burden of proof of its own claims.  For example, I could decide that if a god existed, he should make it to where I make a million dollars a year, but I don't make a million dollars a year, so what rube could possibly believe in that god?  But maybe the god under investigation, according to the traditions and claims of the religion, has no reason to grant me a million dollar salary, or maybe actively doesn't want me to have such an income.  So I'd be ruling him out completely erroneously.  I'm sorry to say that Christians at large haven't done society many favors in this regard.  IMO most Christians aren't good at explaining the nature of God or outlining much helpful theology that gives vital context to what people should be expecting IF the Christian God exists.  

FWIW, I realized the necessity of a falsifiable criteria one day myself, and was shocked to realize I'd never thought about it.  Fortunately Christianity has one built in, which is the resurrection.  As one of the writers of the New Testament put it (paraphrasing), if Christ wasn't raised from the dead, this religion is pointless.  Christianity distinguishes itself from other major religions precisely in that it's not a philosophy (Hinduism, Buddhism) or built on divine revelation (Islam), both of which are nigh impossible to falsify.  How do you prove or disprove a philosophy or supposed divine revelation?  Christianity hinges itself on a historical event which can be investigated like any other historical event for it's probable truth of falsehood.  I mentioned earlier different resurrection theories, and my point in all this is if someone could convince me that one of the other theories better explained the 4 minimal facts than the resurrection theory, I'd be forced to admit this might be hooey.  What I obviously didn't do was outline the pros and cons of each theory, but I suppose it's obvious which one I find most plausible.  I'm aware this all probably moves your needle exactly 0 degrees.  That's fine.  I just don't appreciate the constant jabs that Christians are all gullible idiots, and not from someone who doesn't even seem to know where we are in the ongoing conversation.  I'm not trying to jab back, but I really don't ever see anything from you other than pop-level, angry internet meme level accusations and talking points, and this is so far below and beneath where the scholarship is on both sides that it makes me sad.  If you want to be an atheist, I could probably steel-man some way better arguments for you. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on September 22, 2023, 03:26:31 PM
 I don't think you can "logically" prove or disprove God.

Which is why I operated with the idea that we all build our worldview on certain presuppositions. And it is impossible to build a worldview without some presuppositions, then it becomes what are your presuppositions. (I found most of the most vocal opponents of others worldviews do not recognize their own presuppositions). THe issue then comes to whether your worldview is logically consistent or it falls apart at certain points. If it falls apart, it very well could be that one or more of your presuppositions are wrong. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 22, 2023, 08:11:36 PM



Hey @MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588) when you quote my post and only type within it, I can't quote it.  So it kind of breaks off the convo.


But in regards to my curt responses, it kind of goes along with what @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) has said - a fully-fleshed out retort of a list of the popular apologist arguments is a conversation, not for a web forum.
You get my cliff's notes versions because the longer a post is, the fewer people will read it.

Your long quote-post sounds like Jordan Peterson.  Suggesting I'm not taking into account all the minds and hours and lifetimes dedicated to the idea of a god.  I'm well aware of it.  And I can't name a bigger waste of smart minds and man-hours than religion.  Humanity has wasted an incalculable amount of time, effort, money, etc on the idea of a god and coming up with the mental gymnastics and word salads to try to prove a god.

I may treat believers like "gullible idiots," but I doubt I've used that phrasing.  The gullibility aspect isn't damning, as belief in a god sort of feels good and gives many people a "why" for our existence, so "gullibility" is less accurate than "hopeful" or "desired."
The idiot aspect has nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence.  A person who loses faith and is unconvinced of a god didn't suddenly get smarter.  If I treat a believer like an idiot, it's mostly because of how much our culture has learned and what year it is.  2023.  Just imagine how much humanity has learned in the past 2000 years.  It's vast.  "Idiotic" isn't really accurate, as a person smart enough to use reason and prudence in every other aspect of life is smart enough to know that giving religion a pass isn't reasonable nor prudent.  It's more "willful ignorance," not "idiocy."

What all the apologist arguments come down to are hopeful, desired almosts and maybes.  None of it is actual evidence.  And while disproving a god is also a fool's errand, it's also unnecessary.  Everyone who isn't convinced a god exists is an atheist.  The agnostic crowd are atheists. 
I don't have to make a claim either way.  But as a believer, making the claim there is a god, that's on you to prove.  If you think you can prove a guy literally rose from the dead 2000 years ago, good luck.
The what, tens of millions? of man-hours having thus far failing to prove the point should tell you something.

The time to believe a god exists is when the evidence tells us.  Maybe you'll find the evidence in the next 2000 years.  Maybe not.




Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 22, 2023, 08:24:26 PM
Honestly, though, you have to admit a simple case can be made for christianity being obviously invented.
a - it has a god-man who is an amalgamation of several B.C. characters
b - it's pleasing that there's some sort of post-mortem cosmic justice
c - you believe the dominant religion where you're raised (U.S. - christianity)
d - it's the truth!  (just like every other religion is, too - just ask them)
e - it indoctrinates the youth (for future monies and growth)
f - it hijacked ethics, when the golden rule does just fine
g - none of the believers can get on the same page about anything (denominations)
.
Why normal, smart people suspend their reason for this is beyond me.  It's blatantly obvious.  If you grew up in India, you'd be Hindu.  You'd have deep faith in it and defend it vs me.  You'd post long-ass diatribes about the holy prophet mohammad if you grew up in Saudi Arabia. 
But hopefully you'd love college football in any case.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 22, 2023, 09:06:58 PM
Some of these numbers clearly include donations to capital improvement projects-- upgrades/renovations/rebuilds of stadiums, practice fields, other infrastructure.

So if Michigan hasn't undergone a major capital improvement campaign in the last 10 years or so, there's no way they're going to rank toward the top.  A&M spent over $600M on their major stadium rebuild, UT something like $250M, and I know Oregon just spent a fortune completely redoing their lockers/weight room/practice facilities.  Don't know about the others but Oklahoma State is quite obviously T.  Boone related.

So just keep in mind, these are not donations to operational expenses, these are almost entirely donations to fund capital programs.
Nebraska just finishing the $165 million, 315,000-square-foot North Expansion Project
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 23, 2023, 07:59:41 AM
I think we went through the money thing before and agreed it comes in all shapes and sizes and generally isn't comparable.

And the real money thing probably depends mostly, or significantly, on TV revenues, aside from a few cases where Mr. Rich is a fan.  It would be fun to see a list of how much NIL monies are doing here and there.  I wonder if that has cut into direct contributions.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 23, 2023, 08:25:24 AM
I think we went through the money thing before and agreed it comes in all shapes and sizes and generally isn't comparable.

And the real money thing probably depends mostly, or significantly, on TV revenues, aside from a few cases where Mr. Rich is a fan.  It would be fun to see a list of how much NIL monies are doing here and there.  I wonder if that has cut into direct contributions.
Mr. Wealthy?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 23, 2023, 09:41:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/gI8mnU0.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 23, 2023, 09:46:31 AM
I've spent a bit of time in Knoxville, I wouldn't consider it a top college town, however one defines that, whatever.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 23, 2023, 10:02:52 AM
I've spent a bit of time in Knoxville, I wouldn't consider it a top college town, however one defines that, whatever.
Agreed. It's more of a big city with a college in it. 

@GopherRock (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=47) and I were there as part of a board meeting. Maybe he feels differently.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 23, 2023, 10:31:50 AM
Agreed. It's more of a big city with a college in it.
I guess this could describe Austin, but Austin actually felt like a college town to me.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 23, 2023, 10:33:59 AM
not to me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on September 23, 2023, 01:46:37 PM
Austin felt like a college town, Madison and Knoxville did not. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 23, 2023, 01:55:07 PM
it's all in your experience and how limited

Madison did to me, Austin did not, but I've been to Austin many times and during the offseason
Minneapolis certainly doesn't but........

Lincoln doesn't to me much, probably only because I went to college there
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on September 23, 2023, 02:33:09 PM
I think one key is that Minneapolis has never been considered a college town. Austin and Madison both have. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 23, 2023, 07:31:20 PM
I was surprised how big Knoxville was/looked.  I was surprised how small Starkville was.  We drove in from the SE, and there's no town or outskirts, just fields and BOOM - MSU's campus.
I'm sure it's different now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 24, 2023, 06:29:22 AM
I think a "college town" should be one where the college is a really significant part of the town.  You can tell it is when you enter it, nearly.  I don't have a specific population limit, but maybe around 100,000 at the max.  Does this really mean anything?  No.  Columbus, OH has areas which are clearly college areas, and areas which are clearly not.

I don't think Atlanta has much of a "college area" outside the various campuses.  There is a small strip near Emory which is college-y.  One could live around here for ages and  have no idea a large university is 2 miles distant.

I spent a few years in Chapel Hill and it struck me as "too small" to be a great college town, largeish university in a small town was not that great.  There were only three student oriented bars for example.  I was happy to leave.  Ha.

The area around U of Cincy is "college-y", a bit, and used to not be very safe either.  They could have a good CFB program IFF they could keep a good coach.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 24, 2023, 08:17:46 AM
I think we went through the money thing before and agreed it comes in all shapes and sizes and generally isn't comparable.

And the real money thing probably depends mostly, or significantly, on TV revenues, aside from a few cases where Mr. Rich is a fan.  It would be fun to see a list of how much NIL monies are doing here and there.  I wonder if that has cut into direct contributions.
For the schools with the largest athletic budgets, TV revenue plays a part, but it's not the majority.  For example, Texas' annual budget is around $200M these days, and around $50M comes from TV and other conference distributions.  So 25%.  It's still significant, but it's not the driver.

But these donor figures that hit over half a billion are not really part of the athletics budget, they're almost entirely capital project related.  It's still significant and if the intent is to measure donor impact to a program, then it certainly tells part of the story, but I see people getting wrapped up in these numbers and thinking it implies "richest" programs and it's really not the same.  Depending on the recency of major capital improvement programs, different schools will rise or fall on this list, and it's not because their athletic department is becoming any more, or less, "rich."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 24, 2023, 08:23:09 AM
it's all in your experience and how limited

Madison did to me, Austin did not, but I've been to Austin many times and during the offseason
Minneapolis certainly doesn't but........


Lincoln doesn't to me much, probably only because I went to college there
This is probably part of it.  BF's experience in Austin was centered on the university and the football game and the Board Meeting, so it probably felt a lot more college-y to him.
Your experiences in Austin have been centered on Bonedaddy's, and them ain't college girls. ;)

Personally I don't really consider Austin to be a college town, but it's got a nice college area and if you're a student on campus without a car, you can still have everything you need without getting into the "city" part.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2023, 08:26:21 AM
gee, I thought I was helpin those girls buy books
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 24, 2023, 09:55:32 AM
One dollar at a time?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2023, 09:56:55 AM
I'm a much better tipper than that  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 24, 2023, 11:17:13 AM
One dollar at a time?

It's a breastaraunt rather than a titty bar but, you know, samey-same. :)

Sadly Bonedaddy's is no more.  The Pandemic did them in.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 24, 2023, 11:33:07 AM
Belief that was FFs prefered slaughter house when in the infernal regions
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on September 24, 2023, 12:59:15 PM
How badly do you want me to derail this thread?
Go for it. I’d love to hear your thoughts. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2023, 07:56:40 PM
derail the rankings thread????
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2023, 08:01:42 PM
the Bonedaddys in Arlington is still there but they lost the one up by the airport by my brother's place
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 25, 2023, 05:17:09 AM
It's odd to me how an English word can mean completely different things, like how "rank" can mean "smells bad".  Or put in order of ...  Or military status ...

This trips up my wife at times.

September 25th already ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 25, 2023, 05:19:53 AM
Oh, and my current rankings would probably have FSU at #1.  They have two solid wins.  Texas might be #2.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 25, 2023, 07:33:40 AM
I'd try it:

(https://i.imgur.com/6BteoEo.png)

"Here barbecue means one thing and one thing only: pork- specifically, 15 to 20-pound hams slow-cooked over hickory and oak. The finished pork is chopped into long shreds and dressed in a thin, tangy red sauce, and it's infused with the rich, juicy smoke flavor that you can only get from a direct heat pit." - Robert F. Moss, Southern Living's "The South's Top 50 BBQ Joints of 2023"

Fresh Air Barbeque (freshairbarbecue.com) (https://freshairbarbecue.com/)

What makes Fresh Air unique is the old-fashioned wood burning pit that many consider to be a working piece of Southern Barbecue History.  Wood is a very important aspect of cooking barbecue, giving it a distinct flavor. Fresh Air only uses a combination of Hickory and Oak.  We take great pride in cooking our food the same way it has been cooked for over 80 years. The design of the pit was invented by Toots Caston, founder of Fresh Air Bar-B-Que, in the 1940’s and remains unchanged to this day.  The pit is very labor and time intensive and requires many hours of tending to, even through the night in order to cook our hams in a traditional manner. We operate our pit 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 25, 2023, 10:44:50 AM
Stringy ham slathered in sauce?  Man, I'm not sure about that...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on September 25, 2023, 11:44:35 AM
It's odd to me how an English word can mean completely different things, like how "rank" can mean "smells bad".  Or put in order of ...  Or military status ...

This trips up my wife at times.

September 25th already ...
Which is why the dictionary does not define a word, context does. This trips up so many people when learning a foreign language, they look words up in a lexicon and say it must mean this, when the context of it useage is something different.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2023, 07:51:10 AM
Here Are 12 Cities People Voted as the “Snobbiest” in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/here-are-12-cities-people-voted-as-the-snobbiest-in-america/ss-AA1eJF6A?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd9396177a1045eb849b35bf44b4d965&ei=23#image=1)

Just a list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2023, 08:23:07 AM
Images: View-rific Atlanta student housing tower named best in U.S. | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/atl-student-housing-tower-named-best-in-country-images)

I still am amazed at these "dorms".  I presume they are spreading "everywhere".  My buddy says a lot of Asians come here for school and for them money is no object.  After my first year I moved to an off campus private dorm that was "nice" for the times, we had a pool and a cafeteria that was OK.  It was closer to my classes which was a plus.  I guess the times are achangin' ...

(https://i.imgur.com/hWtaNPB.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2023, 09:43:17 AM
Rankings

(https://i.imgur.com/7pWXadD.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 26, 2023, 09:47:17 AM
Here Are 12 Cities People Voted as the “Snobbiest” in America (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/here-are-12-cities-people-voted-as-the-snobbiest-in-america/ss-AA1eJF6A?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd9396177a1045eb849b35bf44b4d965&ei=23#image=1)

Just a list.
The fact that it’s “people voted” is odd. That methodology has to be very specific and actually might be interesting (not very scientific, to be sure)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2023, 12:27:08 PM
This one is based on DATA!!

The best place for retirees in every state, based on data (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/the-best-place-for-retirees-in-every-state-based-on-data/ss-AA1h2NBT?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d1dfcf98144d4eb3b6f5589690d85c10&ei=8#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2023, 01:47:15 PM
ZOMG THE SCIENCE!!!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2023, 03:46:30 PM
Rankings

(https://i.imgur.com/7pWXadD.png)

Ari Wasserman somehow just made his first trip to Notre Dame stadium, and he said an underrated thing, that he didn't even realize he appreciated was how much lightning has changed now that night games are a regular thing.  A lot of stadiums had either shitty lightning or the network would bring in temporary lights, but they were purely meant for the field.  Now the permanent lightning also accounts for the fans.  Probably smart, but he mentioned how cool it was that ND didn't.  He said you really can't see anything except the field in the dark.

I've always said natural grass looks WAAAAAAY better than FieldTurf under the lights, which gives off a fake plastic shine, but Notre Dame is the one exception.  I wonder if that is why
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2023, 03:47:02 PM
The fact that it’s “people voted” is odd. That methodology has to be very specific and actually might be interesting (not very scientific, to be sure)
I mean

https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/study-finds-pittsburgh-among-the-best-u-s-cities-to-be-a-ghost/
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2023, 03:57:52 PM
Ari Wasserman somehow just made his first trip to Notre Dame stadium, and he said an underrated thing, that he didn't even realize he appreciated was how much lightning has changed now that night games are a regular thing.  A lot of stadiums had either shitty lightning or the network would bring in temporary lights, but they were purely meant for the field.  Now the permanent lightning also accounts for the fans.  Probably smart, but he mentioned how cool it was that ND didn't.  He said you really can't see anything except the field in the dark.

I've always said natural grass looks WAAAAAAY better than FieldTurf under the lights, which gives off a fake plastic shine, but Notre Dame is the one exception.  I wonder if that is why

I can definitely see that being a major change for stadiums up north.

Down here in Texico, most stadiums installed high quality lighting in the 60s/70s.  We didn't play day games in Austin before about September 21st or so, until the mid 80s, when television started dictating the kickoffs.  

Now, of course, television dictates all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2023, 04:02:02 PM
I can definitely see that being a major change for stadiums up north.

Down here in Texico, most stadiums installed high quality lighting in the 60s/70s.  We didn't play day games in Austin before about September 21st or so, until the mid 80s, when television started dictating the kickoffs. 

Now, of course, television dictates all.
I remember growing up the vibes of being the 3:30 ABC game after October 1, because ABC brought in their lights the night before.  That was when you knew it was a big game.  I still think the most big time game feel is a 3:30 game that starts in daylight and ends under the lights.  Moreso than prime time
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2023, 05:31:45 PM
I thought they suspended games if that happened 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2023, 05:40:41 PM
I thought they suspended games if that happened
I think you are thinking of SEC games if there is cloud cover, or it drops below 60, or they have to play a "neutral site" game north of the Mason-Dixon line.

But I was actually thinking of one such game at Michigan against Iowa, maybe 1994(?), and the QB used to be able to tell the officials that the crowd was too loud, and they would restart the clock and tell the crowd to be quieter.  Michigan is a notoriously quiet crowd, and I remember the Iowa QB calling for it like a half dozen times in one game.  Was that a Big Ten rule, or an NCAA rule?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 28, 2023, 09:34:04 PM
MLB "Power Ranking"
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/38490804/mlb-2023-power-rankings-week-26-playoffs-braves-orioles-rays (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/38490804/mlb-2023-power-rankings-week-26-playoffs-braves-orioles-rays)

It does not get lazier than this.  Literally the teams ranked by record.
Why do they bother? 
Who is eagerly anticipating this?
Who is the boss/editor requiring another human to produce it?  
What is their major malfunction?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 28, 2023, 10:19:43 PM
Lightning is lighting I guess 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on September 28, 2023, 11:11:53 PM
330 games as described were great for that theater unless you're underdeessed. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 29, 2023, 02:02:55 AM
MLB "Power Ranking"
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/38490804/mlb-2023-power-rankings-week-26-playoffs-braves-orioles-rays (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/38490804/mlb-2023-power-rankings-week-26-playoffs-braves-orioles-rays)

It does not get lazier than this.  Literally the teams ranked by record.
Why do they bother? 
Who is eagerly anticipating this?
Who is the boss/editor requiring another human to produce it? 
What is their major malfunction?
Readers read it, and people who get feelings-y about rankings share it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 29, 2023, 02:03:54 AM
This one is based on DATA!!

The best place for retirees in every state, based on data (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/the-best-place-for-retirees-in-every-state-based-on-data/ss-AA1h2NBT?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d1dfcf98144d4eb3b6f5589690d85c10&ei=8#image=1)
Every one is just “Badge’s guest house.”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 05:18:44 AM
Readers read it, and people who get feelings-y about rankings share it.
The amusing thing, to me, is the comments section where folks claim X should be ranked 8th, not 9th.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 05:19:57 AM
I saw the headline of a Jalopnik post on FB about "worst rest stops" and they had a photo of Bucees on the page, I am pretty sure to get folks to click.  It's like "Worst Universities in the US" and feature Ohio State in the cover page.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 05:29:02 AM
Savannah, Beaufort, Fort Worth: 10 best places to retire in the South (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/28/chattanooga-tennessee-best-city-south-retire-southern-living-investopedia-study.html)



There is SOME value here, I think, in featuring places folks may not have considered.  Go visit and see.  I've been to most of these, I don't know that I'd consider any of them.  Greenville, SC is surprisingly nice downtown.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 29, 2023, 07:32:34 AM
DATA!!

The best town to live in every state, according to data (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/the-best-town-to-live-in-every-state-according-to-data/ss-AA1aMSJh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=08f2cd9947094b1c8aa9bdfd19d6cae5&ei=18#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 10:14:31 AM
It's amusing, to me, when I lived here before, Alpharetta was a dried up town way out in the sticks of no account whatsoever.  Now it's a pretty reasonable place, though you have to drive just about anywhere you want to go, and traffic is miserable.  My sister lived there for a while.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 10:19:38 AM
https://atlanta.eater.com/2023/9/28/23894110/chicago-hot-dog-chain-portillos-opening-atlanta?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=eater.socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=eateratlanta&fbclid=IwAR1GCr5TEtxKy281NngHVmolFrF6fQX-E7VK47OIKFE4Rk1lbdy5At-UoCY

Is Portillo's authentic?  I think we dined at one in Orlando.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 29, 2023, 10:26:47 AM
They have excellent food. Love the burgers, Italian Beef (We just call it a Beef), Maxwell Street Polish, Chicago dogs, great salads, cheese fries, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 29, 2023, 10:46:35 AM
https://atlanta.eater.com/2023/9/28/23894110/chicago-hot-dog-chain-portillos-opening-atlanta?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=eater.socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_content=eateratlanta&fbclid=IwAR1GCr5TEtxKy281NngHVmolFrF6fQX-E7VK47OIKFE4Rk1lbdy5At-UoCY

Is Portillo's authentic?  I think we dined at one in Orlando.
Yes, I'd call it authentic. There are better local places in Chicago to get Italian Beef IMHO, but their Chicago Dogs pretty much set the standard for me. 

Although not a "Chicago" food specifically, their burgers are REALLY good. 

And the cheese sauce for the cheese fries? Yeah... I think there's some cocaine in there or something. I never go to Portillo's w/o ordering cheese fries. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 29, 2023, 10:52:19 AM
Those burgers are in my top 5, for sure, no matter the category.

Dick Portillo knew what he was doing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 11:36:02 AM
Orlando, Florida - Location | Portillo's (portillos.com) (https://www.portillos.com/location/orlando/)

This was across the street from where we stayed in Orlando last year, I recall dining there once.  We didn't think it was anything special at the time, my wife is a bit finicky about food, I don't recall what I had.  We're going back after baseball (so I can rest a bit) so I'll try it again.  I had one Chicago dog a long time back and liked it.  That was some place in Chicago.

What is the largest US city you have never been in or through?

It's probably Boise for me.  I don't think I was there.  Salt Lake if you don't count the airport.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 29, 2023, 12:34:01 PM
What is the largest US city you have never been in or through?

It's probably Boise for me.  I don't think I was there.  Salt Lake if you don't count the airport.
Probably Miami for me. Other than an airport layover of course, which I don't count. 

After that it might be either San Antonio or Boise; I'm not sure which is bigger (probably SA?)... But I'll be there in 2 weeks so I'll check San Antonio off the list. There are a few that I don't know the size, such as Jacksonville as well. I haven't honestly spent much time of my life in Florida lol. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 29, 2023, 12:51:36 PM
San Antonio is much larger than Boise.  Considering only the urban core within city limits, San Antonio is larger than both Dallas and Austin.  It doesn't have the extensive suburbs and exurbs though.

If you're looking for any recs around the city I could give you a few.

As far as largest cities I've never been to-- I've never been to Detroit, is that considered a large city?  I've been to or through pretty much every other major city in the US.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 01:03:56 PM
Population of U.S. metropolitan areas 2022 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-metropolitan-areas-in-the-us/)

Largest city you've never been to (airport excluded).

I don't think I ever went to Detroit except airport, so I'll bump Boise.

Detroit has more people than Seattle according to this.  The lines around such metro areas can be fairly randomish.  Riverside is counted as separate from LA.

Atlanta is about to pass Philly, might already have happened.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 29, 2023, 02:06:40 PM
San Antonio is much larger than Boise.  Considering only the urban core within city limits, San Antonio is larger than both Dallas and Austin.  It doesn't have the extensive suburbs and exurbs though.

If you're looking for any recs around the city I could give you a few.
Will be in the city only one night on the Riverwalk with my in-laws, and then hanging out at their place down southwest of the city. I'm sure they'll be showing us around. 

As for the city vs metropolitan area, though, I always consider the overall metropolitan area population rather than just w/in city limits. Cities across the country developed SO differently over time so I don't really view population within the formal limits as meaningful.

 I.e. a city with 700K in the official city limits but 4M overall will generally have a more rich "scene" as a tourist than a city with 1.1M in official city limits but only 2M overall... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on September 29, 2023, 04:13:25 PM
Even if there's a strong presence of irrational IPA swillers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on September 29, 2023, 04:56:22 PM
Philly is the largest I have been to.  Have to go pretty far down the list to get to the next one. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 29, 2023, 05:55:57 PM
Will be in the city only one night on the Riverwalk with my in-laws, and then hanging out at their place down southwest of the city. I'm sure they'll be showing us around.

As for the city vs metropolitan area, though, I always consider the overall metropolitan area population rather than just w/in city limits. Cities across the country developed SO differently over time so I don't really view population within the formal limits as meaningful.

I.e. a city with 700K in the official city limits but 4M overall will generally have a more rich "scene" as a tourist than a city with 1.1M in official city limits but only 2M overall...


My only purpose in citing city center sizes was to demonstrate that San Antonio is a major urban area compared to Boise.  Comparing it to Dallas and Austin proper rather than something like, maybe, Modesto, which is a more apt comparison for Boise.

All that said, I'm not sure I agree with your subjective point that I highlighted.  If you're thinking "diverse" rather than "rich" I might be inclined to entertain it, but as stated I think it suggests a bit of a bias against deep cultural specificity.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 29, 2023, 06:05:04 PM
My only purpose in citing city center sizes was to demonstrate that San Antonio is a major urban area compared to Boise.  Comparing it to Dallas and Austin proper rather than something like, maybe, Modesto, which is a more apt comparison for Boise.

All that said, I'm not sure I agree with your subjective point that I highlighted.
#1: Agreed. I didn't feel like it was worth looking up for the purposes of "largest metro you've never been to" since I'll be there in ~10 days. But I had a feeling it was significantly larger than Boise. 

#2: I'm sure there are exceptions. But I tend to believe that the network effects of a larger population within any metro area leads to a greater range of goods, services, activities/experiences, and cultural enrichment opportunities compared to smaller. I.e. if you've got a metro of 1.5M people and 3% of them are into opera, you may not have enough density of that niche to support a theater performing opera. But if you've got a metro of 9M people and 3% of them are into opera, perhaps you do. And for every metro of 1.5M people, that means that many niche interests won't be viable, whereas for a metro of 9M people, most niche interests will be viable and much fewer will not be.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2023, 06:19:24 PM
I agree
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on September 29, 2023, 06:23:25 PM
For me, it's Houston, Philly, and Miami, in that order.

Riverside/Ontario/San Bernardino should not be its own metro. It should be part of Los Angeles.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on September 29, 2023, 06:24:07 PM
https://youtu.be/OpA3ORYlgGs?si=A32O18-V43pcLhd2
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 29, 2023, 07:19:41 PM
I saw the headline of a Jalopnik post on FB about "worst rest stops" and they had a photo of Bucees on the page, I am pretty sure to get folks to click.  It's like "Worst Universities in the US" and feature Ohio State in the cover page.
That's more and more common and the norm, really.  
Post-truth, the wide-open internet has no accountability and facts don't matter.  Real takes with tact and nuance get fewer clicks than bombastic bullshit.  
No reflection of WHY that is and any attempt to fix it, just an acceptance and a race at earning 1 extra dollar.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on September 29, 2023, 07:58:08 PM
Man I wouldn't have guessed I'd go down to Sacramento to find one I haven't been to,  after that Richmond.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 30, 2023, 09:54:48 AM
I've never been to DC, despite the rumors.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 30, 2023, 10:17:54 AM
I enjoy visiting DC, in the main.

Of course, I've enjoyed visiting NYC, SF, Chicago (this is a decade or so back), and a few others.

San Diego seems pretty decent, to me, the parts I've seen.  Vancouver was nice, they had a larger homeless population in some areas than I had expected.  We've taken to doing a bus tour in a new city to get a basic overview of what's there to be seen (or avoided).

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 30, 2023, 10:54:10 AM
#1: Agreed. I didn't feel like it was worth looking up for the purposes of "largest metro you've never been to" since I'll be there in ~10 days. But I had a feeling it was significantly larger than Boise.

#2: I'm sure there are exceptions. But I tend to believe that the network effects of a larger population within any metro area leads to a greater range of goods, services, activities/experiences, and cultural enrichment opportunities compared to smaller. I.e. if you've got a metro of 1.5M people and 3% of them are into opera, you may not have enough density of that niche to support a theater performing opera. But if you've got a metro of 9M people and 3% of them are into opera, perhaps you do. And for every metro of 1.5M people, that means that many niche interests won't be viable, whereas for a metro of 9M people, most niche interests will be viable and much fewer will not be. 
But this is what I'm getting at.  Your vision of "culture" doesn't reflect all visions of "culture" and I think it's a little WASPY/Elitist to project that vision onto a population.  A city like San Antonio doesn't sport an opera (that I know of) but it's extremely rich in culture and history.  That's why I'm steering the idea toward "diversity" rather than "richness."  Yes, New York or Chicago are more diverse than much smaller towns, but I don't think that directly translates to "rich."

And I'm going to go ahead and say any population of 1.5M plus has plenty of capability for supporting all of the white people arts, anyway.  Sure the Austin Symphony Orchestra isn't as good as the New York Philharmonic, but it's still pretty darn good.  

Anyway, I don't REALLY care enough to debate any further, I just think your take might be a little narrow.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 30, 2023, 10:57:39 AM
There is plenty of culture inside my walls. Population 2.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 30, 2023, 11:25:15 AM
OPERA San Antonio (https://www.operasa.org/)

I think we all understand the larger cities in general will have more art museums, misic events, things we might consider cultural.

I think it also true that folks in the 'burbs often don't participate in any/much of it.  Their kids may have a school trip.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 30, 2023, 03:06:51 PM
I enjoy going to the theater.  I don't do it often, but it's enjoyable every time.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 30, 2023, 03:28:47 PM
But this is what I'm getting at.  Your vision of "culture" doesn't reflect all visions of "culture" and I think it's a little WASPY/Elitist to project that vision onto a population.  A city like San Antonio doesn't sport an opera (that I know of) but it's extremely rich in culture and history.  That's why I'm steering the idea toward "diversity" rather than "richness."  Yes, New York or Chicago are more diverse than much smaller towns, but I don't think that directly translates to "rich."

And I'm going to go ahead and say any population of 1.5M plus has plenty of capability for supporting all of the white people arts, anyway.  Sure the Austin Symphony Orchestra isn't as good as the New York Philharmonic, but it's still pretty darn good. 

Anyway, I don't REALLY care enough to debate any further, I just think your take might be a little narrow.
Sorry. My use of the opera was meant to signify a niche interest. I do realize it was a poor choice because it's an example of "high" culture. FWIW, I could go the rest of my life and not step foot in another opera (I've seen one) and not miss it. 

My idea is this general rule: the more niche the interest, the larger population you need to have a chance of making the effort of catering to that interest viable. It's a pure numbers game. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 30, 2023, 04:43:52 PM
Went to an Opera in Italy.

Opera's suck there too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 30, 2023, 05:14:27 PM
I saw the Magic Flute, it lasted forever.  The few good parts were obscured by lengthy boring parts.

I wanted to leave.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 01, 2023, 09:43:06 AM
I go to the theater 4-5x per year.  Once or twice for touring shows, and a couple or three times for local productions. 

Of course I grew up as a band and drama and choir nerd, so there you have it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 01, 2023, 09:47:10 AM
The friend I go with was a drama nerd.  She did sets and such, so she appreciates that in the productions.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2023, 09:50:18 AM
There is a theater near us and I think we should go some time, but the titles don't sound very alluring to me.  My wife says she likes ballet a lot, so far I have avoided that.

The symphony here had a concert in the park we attended last night.  They had a reception beforehand that was nice for donors, and then the AYSO played, the Y = Youth, then the ASO.  There were maybe 3,000 people on the lawn.  The most fun thing was seeing a young fellow maybe 4 in front of the orchestra with a stick he picked up mimicking the conductor.  Then maybe ten other young kids showed up and they looked really amazed by it all, they were very well behaved.

I've been to a few "free concerts" like that where some folks are quite annoying making noise and moving about unconcerned for anyone else.  This one was quite good.

The regular season starts Thursday.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 01, 2023, 10:01:10 AM
I'd rather have my fingernails plucked than go to another symphony or opera. 

To each their own.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2023, 10:03:11 AM
My wife and I both like classical music, she plays it all day from this French radio channel she streams.  We have season tickets (which is 6 concerts).

Some of the pieces they perform are not to my liking of course.  The venue in Cincinnati was much much more impressive and had better acoustics.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 01, 2023, 10:44:25 AM
I enjoy theater (plays/musicals), and could do a symphony. 

No on opera or ballet. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2023, 01:31:29 PM
Some of all of this is the experience of "getting out of the house".  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2023, 02:04:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/E1oPc6O.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 01, 2023, 05:04:45 PM
I enjoy theater (plays/musicals), and could do a symphony.

No on opera or ballet.
I like them all.  Opera in Paris was incredible, opera in Prague pretty great too.  Many French operas include a ballet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 01, 2023, 05:59:20 PM
This week's top 25 based solely on resume (from the youtube):
1. Texas
2. FSU
3. Penn St
4. UNC
5. Wazzou
6. OSU
7. Warshington
8. UGA
9. ND
10. Alabama
11. UL
12. Duke
13. Miami
14. OU
15. Oregon
16. Mizzou
17. UK
18. Michigan
19. Ole Miss
20. Maryland
21. USC
22. Oregon St
23. Fresno St
24. A&M
25. Kansas
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 01, 2023, 08:04:46 PM
Fro posted that while singing opera and dancing ballet. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 01, 2023, 08:17:50 PM
Fro posted that while singing opera and dancing ballet.
Stop peaking through my windows!  :96:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 01, 2023, 09:22:17 PM
It's a bit terrifying to see people ranking Texas as #1.  Just waiting for the other shoe to drop, and with my luck it'll be against the hated Sooners on Saturday.

Still, it should be a heck of a fun game to watch!  I'll be there for the 34th time in my life, including 31 of the last 34.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on October 01, 2023, 10:13:35 PM
I like them all.  Opera in Paris was incredible, opera in Prague pretty great too.  Many French operas include a ballet.
You wouldn't cut it as a dead head.Austin is suppose to be weird - that's not weird that's culture - you should move
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 01, 2023, 10:46:53 PM
It's a bit terrifying to see people ranking Texas as #1.  Just waiting for the other shoe to drop, and with my luck it'll be against the hated Sooners on Saturday.

Still, it should be a heck of a fun game to watch!  I'll be there for the 34th time in my life, including 31 of the last 34.
At least they both matter.  That's cool.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on October 02, 2023, 07:12:52 AM
Largest cities I’ve never been to….hell that would be nearly all of them. Never been to NYC or LA, and tbh I don’t really care to go. 

Been to San Francisco, Denver, NO, Dallas, and that’s about it. I would like to travel to Europe before I kick the bucket. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 02, 2023, 09:37:36 AM
Stacking up the SEC after Week 5: UGA football’s top contender emerges (usatoday.com) (https://ugawire.usatoday.com/lists/sec-power-rankings-after-week-5-georgia-bulldogs-football/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1_D1-95pycdZt8G6MurfLZsW1G69L_yPVkXrT5MLz_15gKcTcAGAhyGKU)

Could be roughly correct, but really irrelevant, the brief summaries are maybe of use.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on October 02, 2023, 04:50:56 PM
Largest cities I’ve never been to….hell that would be nearly all of them. Never been to NYC or LA, and tbh I don’t really care to go.

Been to San Francisco, Denver, NO, Dallas, and that’s about it. I would like to travel to Europe before I kick the bucket.
Thankfully, Texas is loaded up with large cities. Four of the top 10!

Of the rest, NYC is the kind of place I'd only suggest if you want to experience that kind of thing. LA is so spread out, meh (some parts are nice, but it's not a place you can take the real temp of). Chicago is like NY, but less. Also one with some intentionality of experience. Phoenix is nice enough. Never done Philly. San Diego is deeply nice, though might not have the highest high points. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 02, 2023, 05:21:22 PM
Thankfully, Texas is loaded up with large cities. Four of the top 10!

Of the rest, NYC is the kind of place I'd only suggest if you want to experience that kind of thing. LA is so spread out, meh (some parts are nice, but it's not a place you can take the real temp of). Chicago is like NY, but less. Also one with some intentionality of experience. Phoenix is nice enough. Never done Philly. San Diego is deeply nice, though might not have the highest high points.
Yeah, LA is a hard "city" to visit. Essentially it's the kind of place that you'd be more likely to come because there was some specific thing you wanted to see/do, and then build around from there. I.e. come for the Rose Bowl, or Disneyland, etc. But it's not a city you visit just to see the city IMHO. 

I do think San Diego is much better for that purpose. It's much more centralized and has quite a bit going on. And the downtown is on the water, so it's not like LA where you have to fight through horrific traffic to see a beach. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 02, 2023, 06:13:53 PM
I have mentioned before how we had a bad visit to New Orleans.  Usually I give a place a pass after one visit, but I really have zero interest in returning in this case.  And yes, maybe I should, but I won't.

It's best when you have a "local guide", a friend who has lived there and does live there.  I know here I could take you places and you'd think this is a S-hole, and other places and you'd think "This is much nicer than I expected."  I suspect that is broadly true.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on October 02, 2023, 07:05:50 PM
I have mentioned before how we had a bad visit to New Orleans.  Usually I give a place a pass after one visit, but I really have zero interest in returning in this case.  And yes, maybe I should, but I won't.

It's best when you have a "local guide", a friend who has lived there and does live there.  I know here I could take you places and you'd think this is a S-hole, and other places and you'd think "This is much nicer than I expected."  I suspect that is broadly true.


Out of curiosity, what made it bad?

I tend to like that city, but it is by and large a very uneven place in terms of experience. In some ways even more so than most cities. (mostly because the place most people go is in someways very cool and in some ways a real tourist hell. And a lot of neighborhoods are downright sketchy)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 02, 2023, 11:54:07 PM
LA really is an urban jungle.  
Streets crisscross and curl around and up the uneven terrain.  You could get lost very easily there.  I found myself thinking it would be impossible to be a cop there and track anyone down.  They'd just disappear.  

What I liked most about it was all the landmarks I grew up seeing in shows and movies.  Things I didn't even realize I'd see and some I sought out.  
What I didn't like was the beach.  Sand fleas or whatever on all the kelp/seaweed and the water is so cold.  

I realize my observations are based on my experiences of growing up in flat-land Florida w/ warm gulf-stream water and now living in flat, gridded Phoenix.  

LA also made me think of a time I "discovered" a part of Phoenix I had never visited before, called Sunnyslope.  It's just a neighborhood/community that isn't on the way to anywhere, but I found myself in it one day.  LA probably has 70 of those places - parts of the city you'd just never experience because you never needed to.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2023, 06:44:49 AM
When in Sunnyslope, you must go here:

GREEK TOWN RESTAURANT INC, Phoenix - North Mountain - Menu, Prices & Restaurant Reviews - Tripadvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g31310-d335643-Reviews-Greek_Town_Restaurant_INC-Phoenix_Arizona.html)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2023, 09:59:03 AM
LA was fascinating to me as a 20-something, the club/bar and music scene is unmatched anywhere else in the US.  As I got older, that changed for me and it became less of a draw.

Agree with OAM about how cool it was seeing all the landmarks/icons from movies and TV shows all around the city.

I like the towns south of LA a lot better.  Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point.  

Malibu is pretty cool, too.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 03, 2023, 11:22:33 AM
LA really is an urban jungle. 
Streets crisscross and curl around and up the uneven terrain.  You could get lost very easily there. 

The weird thing about LA is that this is both correct and incorrect. Huge swaths of the LA area are just flat expanses with nicely gridded streets. But there are also large areas where you've got foothills and terrain, and of course the LA "basin" is called such because it's basically surrounded by mountains. 

(Diverging from LA to OC): My wife grew up in Long Beach, and had lived in Huntington Beach for 10 years before we met. In both places, the land is pretty flat and the streets are mostly straight. So you know where you are and where you're going, and everything's predictable. Then she moved in with me down here in Mission Viejo, where the terrain is very hilly so sight lines are impeded, roads snake in all sorts of different directions, and learning your way around is a chore because you may start out heading south and a mile later you're heading west, all on the same street. 

Quote
LA also made me think of a time I "discovered" a part of Phoenix I had never visited before, called Sunnyslope.  It's just a neighborhood/community that isn't on the way to anywhere, but I found myself in it one day.  LA probably has 70 of those places - parts of the city you'd just never experience because you never needed to.

Yeah, and to an extent this is one of the things that I said about larger metros offering a "richer" experience than smaller. Because there are so many people, there is more opportunity for enclaves with very unique feel to all exist within the same city. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on October 03, 2023, 11:49:23 AM
You wouldn't cut it as a dead head.Austin is suppose to be weird - that's not weird that's culture - you should move
Funny, that is where I saw the Grateful Dead back in 82. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2023, 12:02:20 PM
I used to be in LA for business pretty often, and I found the "grid" part to be very convenient.  Often the freeways were clogged and I could exit and drive pretty well on the streets.  Once you get into the hills that changes of course.

ATL doesn't have much of a grid anywhere outside downtown and a little in midtown.  The streets here often move "OK" when the freeway is clogged (which is most of the time with only one N/S freeway.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2023, 12:24:49 PM
My wife grew up in Long Beach, and had lived in Huntington Beach for 10 years before we met.

When I first met my late BIL, he lived on Signal Hill, which was pretty cool. Then he moved to Belmont Shores into a little house like you have. Then he bought 5 little houses and knocked them down to build his empire.


(https://i.imgur.com/7vk0FEM.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/WXUFhLG.jpg)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on October 03, 2023, 12:55:17 PM
When in Sunnyslope, you must go here:

GREEK TOWN RESTAURANT INC, Phoenix - North Mountain - Menu, Prices & Restaurant Reviews - Tripadvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g31310-d335643-Reviews-Greek_Town_Restaurant_INC-Phoenix_Arizona.html)

JUst learned I have to officiate a HS Football game at Sunnyslope at the end of October.  No thanks rather not drive the 45 miles from my house. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2023, 01:11:15 PM
When I first met my late BIL, he lived on Signal Hill, which was pretty cool. Then he moved to Belmont Shores into a little house like you have. Then he bought 5 little houses and knocked them down to build his empire.
What the hell did he do?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2023, 01:21:45 PM
Real estate investment and property management.

We are still partners in a number of his deals. My SIL is doing a great job on the management side, but the company is no longer buying properties.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 03, 2023, 08:41:53 PM
When in Sunnyslope, you must go here:

GREEK TOWN RESTAURANT INC, Phoenix - North Mountain - Menu, Prices & Restaurant Reviews - Tripadvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g31310-d335643-Reviews-Greek_Town_Restaurant_INC-Phoenix_Arizona.html)

I will try it.
The reason I 'found' that part of town was going to Little Miss BBQ.  It's too good!  I get the double brisket and both sides are jalapeno grits.
I was brave one day and ordered the grits, thinking they'd be too spicy or just bad, but they are delectable!  They're too good!  Just a hint of spicy and just great.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2023, 09:25:25 AM
Which States Have the Worst Roads—and Which Ones Have the Best? (motortrend.com) (https://www.motortrend.com/features/worst-roads-in-america-ranked-by-state/?sm_id=organic%3Asm_id%3Afb%3AMT%3Atrueanthem&fbclid=IwAR3eCNT5Wwzny8BnvTqFzpbpxCFTw-j8pp1p5sp86wgN4lQBLMR-MSUWQTU)

I dislike when you have to click through pages to find anything.

The rest of y'all have some bad roads apparently.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 06, 2023, 12:00:35 PM
I didn't click all the way through but if there's any state that has worse roads than Louisiana, I don't ever want to drive there.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2023, 12:03:58 PM
LA came it at 12th, from the bottom.

Oklahoma was 8th worst, they lost out to Texas.

CA was next to worst, which was held by RI of all places.

I've driven in every state but ND and AL.  I had the most issues with NJ.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 06, 2023, 12:07:12 PM
roads thru Denver are the worst I've encountered in the past couple years
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 06, 2023, 12:08:29 PM
LA came it at 12th, from the bottom.

Oklahoma was 8th worst, they lost out to Texas.

CA was next to worst, which was held by RI of all places.

I've driven in every state but ND and AL.  I had the most issues with NJ.



Well, obviously.  

I didn't think California roads were all that bad.  Definitely not as bad as Louisiana.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on October 06, 2023, 12:50:23 PM
Most California roads don't have to deal with frost heave, temps from -40 to 120, and junk drainage.

Not surprised about Louisiana. Everything in that state is 6 inches or less above the water table. 

Drainage is the sneaky road wrecker. Spots on our system that are chronic trouble spots for pavement buckles and potholes are places with bad drainage and poor subgrades.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2023, 01:00:50 PM
We have exit ramps near me off an old freeway that are 70 years old and the original concrete.  Weather (and exit ramps).  When they widened the main freeway, the left about 2 miles of old freeway parallel to it for local access, it's quite handy, and old.

Many of the higher ranked states are in the south, not all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 06, 2023, 02:03:19 PM
CA roads are pretty bad. Problem here is that it's impossible to fix them because there's so much damn traffic that you don't want to shut them down and screw everything up more than it already is. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 06, 2023, 05:55:48 PM
Most California roads don't have to deal with frost heave, temps from -40 to 120, and junk drainage.

Not surprised about Louisiana. Everything in that state is 6 inches or less above the water table.

Drainage is the sneaky road wrecker. Spots on our system that are chronic trouble spots for pavement buckles and potholes are places with bad drainage and poor subgrades.
That's an issue, but their real problem is all of the dirty politicians who seize the money that's supposed to be spent on roadways and... well... steal it.  Huey Long might not still be around, but his legacy remains.  We've had some corrupt politicians here in Texico, LBJ was among the worst, but they can't hold a candle to our neighbors to the east.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 08:41:57 AM
I suspect often they don't literally steal it, they do it quasi legally, favored bidding contracts etc.  Fifty years ago you could tell who was governor or DoT Commish by looking at a map of the state roads.  The I-85 routing story is illustrative.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on October 07, 2023, 09:10:12 AM
I’ve always felt that the roads in Tx were pretty good. 

I did notice the roads in La were pretty bad. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 07, 2023, 09:14:46 AM
I suspect often they don't literally steal it, they do it quasi legally, favored bidding contracts etc.  Fifty years ago you could tell who was governor or DoT Commish by looking at a map of the state roads.  The I-85 routing story is illustrative.


??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 09:15:13 AM
The roads near you could be bad, or good, and not reflective of what they measure here of course.  The city streets around me are in mostly pretty bad shape.  There is so much construction they keep digging them up for utilities and the repairs are not usually good.  Even new stretches of pavement get dug up for something, maybe fiver optics or a new water or electric line, and boom.  The freeways are usually in good shape but we avoid them as much as possible.  Bridges?  Who would know?

Out in the country, the state highways are nearly always quite nice, I appreciate that when we tour around.  We like to venture to state parks and walk about.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 09:50:40 AM
Interstate 85 in Georgia - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_85_in_Georgia)

From Atlanta, I-85 north was originally slated to be built through the city of Athens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens,_Georgia) to provide an easy link between the capital city and the University of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Georgia). However, then-Governor Ernest Vandiver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Vandiver) worked to make sure the highway traversed his home county of Franklin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_County,_Georgia), a stretch that now bears his name. At the time, he promised equivalent access for Athens and Gainesville.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_85_in_Georgia#cite_note-19) It was not until the completion of SR 316 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_316) in the 1990s that there was finally a relatively quick, multilane expressway connecting Athens and Atlanta,[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] (US 78 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_78_in_Georgia) is also multilane between Athens and Atlanta but it is not expressway-grade) although SR 316 still is largely at-grade.


If you look at a map of NW SC, you can see a 20 mile section of freeway that connects to nothing.  Georgia was supposed to build I-85 through Gainesville, not Athens, and connect up with this portion already built in SC.  Vandiver got it rerouted south through his home town, and then it jogs north to catch Greenville, SC.

I-16 did the same thing because the DoT head was from Soperton, GA, so he got it routed to where it ended for a while to route traffic through that town.  He had a stretch built in the middle of nowhere that ended near Soperton, for several years.

I played bball in HS with the guy who was head of DoT for a long time, he corrected a lot of this mess, they named Spaghetti Junction after him.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 10:17:11 AM
Atlanta's Spaghetti Junction ranked #1 for Top 100 Bottlenecks in U.S. | 11alive.com (https://www.11alive.com/article/traffic/atlantas-spaghetti-junction-ranked-1-for-top-100-bottlenecks-in-us/85-511473002)

Irony.

1. I-285 at I-85 (Spaghetti Junction, ranked #1)
2. I-75 at I-285 NB ( Cobb Cloverleaf Ranked #4)
3. I-20 at I-285 WB (Ranked #17)
4. I-20 at I-285 EB (Ranked #46)
5. I-20 at I-75/85 (Ranked #79)
6. I-75 at I-85 (Downtown connector, Brookwood Ranked #90)
7. I-75 at I-675 (Ranked #95)
The research revealed that the average speed on Spaghetti Junction peaked at 24.73 mph, that's slower than a school driving zone.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 07, 2023, 10:27:32 AM
RANKINGS!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 10:32:34 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jWStfOX.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 07, 2023, 10:36:59 AM
Is Chik-fil-A introducing spaghetti??
(https://i.imgur.com/lHX7wmO.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 10:40:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/GMC8sxK.png)

This is the interchange back in the day, still under construction.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2023, 10:41:58 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/mDOTew2.png)

Now it's a more modern thing of course, the main challenge was the four interchanges with regular streets not far from this.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 08, 2023, 02:07:56 PM
We all know the deal, but Texas played a great game on a neutral site against a top ranked opponent and barely loses after some TOs, and the coaches drop them 7 spots, to 11th, just below Alabama.  A team they defeated, at their place, rather soundly.

The good thing is it doesn't matter, it's just ... expected.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 08, 2023, 06:42:20 PM
And you wonder why CA roads are bad...

It takes 5+ years for a freeway on-ramp project...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 09, 2023, 06:42:42 AM
I've driven a fair bit in CA and didn't find the roads notably poor.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2023, 09:19:12 AM
U.S. cities where home prices rose the most in the last year (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/10/us-cities-where-home-prices-rose-the-most-in-the-last-year.html)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2023, 09:26:51 AM
doesn't seem right if many are moving out of LA and Chicago
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2023, 09:35:43 AM
Yeah, maybe, but the 'burbs are different from the city.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2023, 09:40:20 AM
Yeah, maybe, but the 'burbs are different from the city.
In many cases SE WI and NW IN are included in the Chicago metro for studies like this one.

You can reach those by Metra Rail from downtown stations.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2023, 09:52:11 AM
that's the problem with studies and rankings

ya gotta read the details in the fine print and many times that info is not available
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2023, 10:42:21 AM
The large print giveth, the fine print taketh away.

Have your money in hand and your order in mind.

Don't eat the yellow snow.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2023, 11:14:22 AM
College football's 10 toughest remaining schedules for 2023 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/LongFormArticle/college-footballs-10-toughest-remaining-schedules-for-2023-season-217794269/?fbclid=IwAR30Hbaq1yjglrwlt88UX_7D2hD8xrZS4h-C0-vH0IYFlcoF9PPZS2Mdap4)

USC first.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2023, 11:26:02 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bzfA9OJ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2023, 10:06:07 PM
project away
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rook119 on October 10, 2023, 11:04:30 PM
U.S. cities where home prices rose the most in the last year (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/10/us-cities-where-home-prices-rose-the-most-in-the-last-year.html)


  • Los Angeles: 23.8%
  • San Diego: 18.2%
  • Richmond: 15%
  • Cincinnati, Ohio: 14.6%
  • Providence, Rhode Island and Massachusetts: 14.6%
  • Boston: 14.1%
  • Columbus, Ohio: 12.1%
  • Rochester, New York: 11.4%
  • Pittsburgh: 10.6%
  • Chicago: 10.3%
  • Indianapolis: 10%
10.6% in Pittsburgh is still insanely affordable. my parents street (bordering suburb) has experienced a housing boom, houses (in excellent shape) that were once selling for 22-40K (like really) 20 years ago are going for 70-90K today. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on October 11, 2023, 07:24:27 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bzfA9OJ.png)
those would all be some pretty awesome matchups except for Washington-Tulane. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 11, 2023, 07:46:14 AM
Why do the Cotton and Fiesta always get stuck with the G5 rep?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2023, 08:14:46 AM
they don't pay as well
$$$$$$$$
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 11, 2023, 09:39:04 AM
they don't pay as well
$$$$$$$$
Nah, not anymore.  For NY6 + CFP all of the payouts are standardized. If the conference sends 1 team you get X, 2 teams you get Y, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2023, 09:42:59 AM
I meant what they bid to get the games, not what was paid to the teams.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 11, 2023, 10:06:37 AM
I meant what they bid to get the games, not what was paid to the teams.
Huh? 

Everything's standard.  All 4 NY6  bowls that are not hosting CFP semifinals are treated the same.  And the two NY6 bowls that are hosting semifinals in that year are treated the same.  And the CFP semifinals are rotated among those 6 bowls annually. It's all completely standardized now, in the contracts that the conferences (plus ND) signed with the CFP/NY6.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2023, 10:19:55 AM
sure

so next season the Rose and Sugar get stuck with the G5 rep?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 11, 2023, 11:37:11 AM
sure

so next season the Rose and Sugar get stuck with the G5 rep?

Maybe, maybe not?  But the answer as to "why" isn't money.  The money is the same across the board.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 11, 2023, 11:40:32 AM
One thing we know is that the Rose Bowl won't get the PAC and B1G ever again, unless they meet in a semifinal this season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 11, 2023, 12:03:38 PM
The Rose should get the G5 every year, for those times it was the only thing preventing a 1 vs 2 matchup.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2023, 10:54:13 PM
agreed

and I also agree that it's ALWAYS about the money
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 12, 2023, 07:44:02 AM
The Rose should get the G5 every year, for those times it was the only thing preventing a 1 vs 2 matchup.
The B1G and PAC were also complicit in that arrangement.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2023, 07:58:35 AM
yup, and now here we are with a 12-team playoff:91:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2023, 09:36:24 AM
I was creating a Whoa Nellie order and producing All-Time LSU.  The QBs are Joe Burrow, Tommy Hodson, Jamarcus Russell, and Bert Jones.

We all know Burrow had the best single season ever for a QB.
But here's a funny thing:  his career numbers are basically identical to Hendon Hooker, with Hooker having double the rushing stats.
Here are their lines:
Cmp:  632     650
Att:    943     945
Pct:    67.0     68.8
Yds:    8974   8852
Y/A:    9.5       9.4
TD:      80        78
INT:     12        11
Rate:   172.4    172.4
.
Rushing
Att:      518      258
Yds:     2083    820
Avg:      4.0      3.2
TD:        25       13

Their passing careers were indistinguishable.  Just a little surprise in the data.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 13, 2023, 10:18:56 AM
so, that's why the Lions drafted Hooker in the third round
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2023, 03:33:02 PM
Yeah...
or 
Heupel has a helluva system
or
Hooker was run-first at VT, but was a better passer than we thought
or
players are remembered for their peak, not their average
.
I bet teams that draft a player based on his peak are poor franchises and teams that draft based on a player's average are the better franchises.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 15, 2023, 03:38:17 PM
The Top 25 based on resume alone Top 25 That Makes Sense (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvLprN8WBQ)
1. FSU
2. UNC
3. Georgia
4. Penn St
5. OU
6. Warshington
7. OSU
8. UM
9. Texas
10. Alabama
11. Ole Miss
12. Duke
13. Oregon
14. Oregon St
15. Utah
16. UL
17. ND
18. LSU
19. Mizzou
20. Iowa
21. USC
22. USAFA
23. Tennessee
24. UCLA
25. Tulane
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 15, 2023, 06:58:37 PM
so, yer going by Number of losses?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 15, 2023, 09:35:13 PM
It's not mine, lol
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 16, 2023, 08:12:50 AM
it makes sense because of number of losses
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 19, 2023, 05:27:36 PM
Forbes Most Educated Cities Ranking:

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/most-educated-cities/

(https://i.imgur.com/nueVYFC.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on October 19, 2023, 05:56:49 PM
I see they left the West Side of Cleveland off again - FRAUDS
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 19, 2023, 05:58:43 PM
liberals are better educated
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 19, 2023, 10:03:54 PM
it makes sense because of number of losses
:57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2023, 07:14:45 PM
First CFP Rankings of 2023:

1. Ohio State
2. Georgia
3. Michigan
4. FSU
----------------
5. Warshington
6. Oregon
7. Texas
8. Alabama
9. OU
10. Ole Miss
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2023, 07:28:11 PM
A 2nd-grade class could produce what the committee did tonight:
Teams ranked 1-5:  0 losses
Teams ranked 6-13:  1 loss
Teams ranked 14-23:  2 losses
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on October 31, 2023, 08:14:33 PM
A 2nd-grade class could produce what the committee did tonight:
Teams ranked 1-5:  0 losses
Teams ranked 6-13:  1 loss
Teams ranked 14-23:  2 losses

It's almost like they reward winners and punish losers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2023, 08:42:47 PM
It's almost like they reward winners and punish losers
Rewards OOC schedules like Michigan's.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on October 31, 2023, 08:50:43 PM
Rewards OOC schedules like Michigan's. 
Michigan has been far and away the most impressive team statistically, even though their schedule blows. They would be favored against OSU on a neutral field right now. Always a test of how to balance those things. Personally, I'd put Georgia #1 because I subscribe to the Ric Flair rule.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 31, 2023, 09:30:15 PM
Michigan has been far and away the most impressive team statistically, even though their schedule blows. They would be favored against OSU on a neutral field right now. Always a test of how to balance those things. Personally, I'd put Georgia #1 because I subscribe to the Ric Flair rule.
Stacking bad idea onto bad idea.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on November 01, 2023, 06:49:19 AM
Stacking bad idea onto bad idea.
Yes yes I know I'm not paying enough attention to recruiting rankings. But I think Georgia is fine there too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 07:37:44 AM
I think we here know the only important thing in first week CFP rankings.  And it's not all that important.

But imagine they came out with rankings that had a 0 loss P5 team ranked 10th and a 2 loss team ranked 2nd.  Would that be any "better"?  

If a team has not played any 'ranked teams' yet, should they be penalized for beating mediocre teams decisively?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2023, 08:33:37 AM
no worries

they always "fix it" in the final poll

the only poll that counts
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 08:44:41 AM
The ultimate polls are only the AP and Coaches (and some others), the CFP is only the penultimate poll, so it's arguably not the most important.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
the CFP poll is worth the $$$

some folks think $$$ is important
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 09:15:53 AM
Yup.  I suppose one could argue it's better to be #4 in the CFP and #10 in the final polls than the reverse.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 02:11:59 PM
Atlanta among Top 20 best cities for renters in the country – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/atlanta-among-top-20-best-cities-renters-country/DSK7W5FXBBHOTPWIDZXQY4FWAQ/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1hwTF_hSYpB8t5rPzcgnaL_neqNTwwCmKXw0szjFOuMNvPPf2sEavRQQo)

 “evaluated the 96 most-populated U.S. cities with available data across 23 different metrics to uncover the best cities for renters. We considered average rental prices and unit sizes for one- and two-bedroom rentals, the year-over-year percentage change in average rent, the percentage of renters who are rent-burdened, crime rates, the percentage of dog-friendly rentals, amenities and other metrics to identify the best cities to rent in.”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2023, 02:17:13 PM
dog-friendly rentals, and other metrics???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
I'd probably contrive different metrics, at least in part.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2023, 02:42:19 PM
dog friendly might be a negative metric for me

and I'm a dog person that has had a dog living in my house
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 01, 2023, 06:33:38 PM
I'd probably think about square footage per dollar in rent as a primary.  At least it's a real metric not based on judgment.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 01, 2023, 07:11:01 PM
I'd probably think about square footage per dollar in rent as a primary.  At least it's a real metric not based on judgment.
Yeah, but what about square footage per dollar in purchase price? You clearly have chosen high-rise living in a dense urban area where everything is walkable, and you're paying a SERIOUS premium in square footage per dollar compared to those folks out in Alpharetta. You had different metrics you cared about that make higher cost worth it. 

The problem with any of these rankings is that they have to try to figure out metrics that they think people will value, and the minute they do that, anyone who doesn't care about one of those metrics call bullshit on the entire endeavor. 

But if they were all about square footage per dollar, there'd be some sad-ass cities on this list. I bet downtown Detroit would score highly on that metric lol. 

But you know what it means if square footage per dollar is cheap? It means there's not very high demand to live there. You could almost go the opposite direction and say that the highest cost places are obviously the best, because they're expensive due to demand that it SO insane that people are willing to spend outrageous amounts to live there. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 02, 2023, 12:49:38 AM
dog friendly might be a negative metric for me

and I'm a dog person that has had a dog living in my house
I thought this was for guys with ugly wives...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2023, 07:36:46 AM
Yeah, but what about square footage per dollar in purchase price? You clearly have chosen high-rise living in a dense urban area where everything is walkable, and you're paying a SERIOUS premium in square footage per dollar compared to those folks out in Alpharetta. You had different metrics you cared about that make higher cost worth it.

The problem with any of these rankings is that they have to try to figure out metrics that they think people will value, and the minute they do that, anyone who doesn't care about one of those metrics call bullshit on the entire endeavor.
Sure, the ranking is "best cities for renters", which has to infer criteria of some sort of course.  And this is an excellent example of why such rankings are irrelevant.  But for anyone renting, price per sqft should be A consideration at least.  

There are smaller condos near us that go to 2-3x what we paid (if you presume condo price correlates with rental pricing).  And most places are apartments, some charging a hefty monthly due to location and amenties.  I'd guess rentals down near the airport are pretty cheap.

Anyway, it's another goofy ranking, I think we'd all agree.  

(Alpharetta is pretty nice these days, I'm not sure it would be much cheaper than here.  I briefly considered further out, and Buckhead, but we both were really taken with this area, and the park.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2023, 01:45:07 PM
Average credit score by age in the U.S. (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/average-credit-score-by-age-in-the-us.html)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 02, 2023, 02:01:34 PM
Huh.  I always thought I was called Gen Y, slightly younger than Gen X, and different from Millennials.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 02, 2023, 02:08:27 PM
I'm square in the middle of Gen X and proud of it.  I feel like Gen X was and still is severly unrepresented in today's media.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 02, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Huh.  I always thought I was called Gen Y, slightly younger than Gen X, and different from Millennials. 
Gen Y was essentially renamed to Millennials. 

I'm in the subgroup of late Gen X known as "Xennial". We're described as the "analog childhood, digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time while older Gen X was already into their professional lives and trying to do it after the fact. On the younger end, most Millennials don't really remember that life could exist before the internet because it was a constant in almost everything they did. 

If you're at the front of Gen Y, you might be in that Xennial group as well. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 02, 2023, 02:25:06 PM
Gen Y was essentially renamed to Millennials.

I'm in the subgroup of late Gen X known as "Xennial". We're described as the "analog childhood, digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time while older Gen X was already into their professional lives and trying to do it after the fact. On the younger end, most Millennials don't really remember that life could exist before the internet because it was a constant in almost everything they did.

If you're at the front of Gen Y, you might be in that Xennial group as well.
i'm there as well. don't feel i fit in either group very well, but do fit in some regards for each.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2023, 02:59:01 PM
The credit ratings, for me, don't seem very revealing.  I think there is a difference between a 500 and an 800.  But were I a lender, I'd be looking at more information.  I know mine bounces around a bit, maybe +/- 30 points, for no apparent reason.  Like most ratings of things, my suspicion is the CR is based on weirdnesses.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 02, 2023, 03:24:56 PM

I'm in the subgroup of late Gen X known as "Xennial". We're described as the "analog childhood, digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time while older Gen X was already into their professional lives and trying to do it after the fact. On the younger end, most Millennials don't really remember that life could exist before the internet because it was a constant in almost everything they did.

That pretty much sums me up, but according to age on that list, I'm in the tail end of Gen X and not at the front of Millennial.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 02, 2023, 03:26:58 PM
I'm definitely GenX.

And, there's probably part of my generation that had to play catch-up on the internet and other things digital.  But as a computer engineer and computer programmer, I was busy creating that thing for you young whipper-snappers, so I think I understand the ins and outs and what have yous.

As a senior in high school in 1989/1990, I did an internship at the Applied Research Labs in Austin, which is a government think tank that was originally part of DARPA.  My job was to port files from their regionally distributed databases around the country, and translate them into visuals using Apple's Hypercard language and protocols, to be displayed on the client-side Apple Macs, at all of their sites nationwide.  We transferred the data using the legacy ARPAnet as the backbone.  So quite literally, I was one of the pioneers of hypertext web based internet protocols.


Note, none of this was invented by Al Gore, despite claims to the contrary... :)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 02, 2023, 03:40:07 PM
The credit ratings, for me, don't seem very revealing.  I think there is a difference between a 500 and an 800.  But were I a lender, I'd be looking at more information.  I know mine bounces around a bit, maybe +/- 30 points, for no apparent reason.  Like most ratings of things, my suspicion is the CR is based on weirdnesses.

I can tell you from my banking days that lenders, at least in that industry, definitely factor in credit scores, but also several other things, like debt-to-income ratio.  

The FICO formulas have time-sensitive variables, meaning it can and will change just with the passage of one reporting cycle, regardless of whether you did anything in the last 30 days or not.  It's nearly impossible to keep it from bouncing up or down a few points.  

And of course, there's no one credit score.  There's multiple FICO models and three different credit reporting agencies.  Depending on which agency's info is used, and which formula its plugged into, you'll get different scores.  Which is why some people's bank or credit card company offers their credit scores for free and people go to buy a car or something and think they know what their score is, but it's not the same as what the lender is looking at.  Mortgage underwriters are often looking at FICO 5 (I think....it's been a while) while credit card companies are looking at FICO 8 scores (which is the score my credit card provides to me as a "perk").  Still others, like auto-loan businesses are looking at yet another one, FICO 9, maybe....not sure. 

In general I think its safe to assume that the scores are pretty ballpark, so if you have good credit on one, it's probably good on another.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 02, 2023, 04:17:29 PM
Gen Y was essentially renamed to Millennials.

I'm in the subgroup of late Gen X known as "Xennial". We're described as the "analog childhood, digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time while older Gen X was already into their professional lives and trying to do it after the fact. On the younger end, most Millennials don't really remember that life could exist before the internet because it was a constant in almost everything they did.

If you're at the front of Gen Y, you might be in that Xennial group as well.
Hmm...I'm not really crazy about that term.  I was born in '75, slightly before what most consider a Xennial (77-83, coincidently the same years the original Star Wars films were released).  I can remember computers and technology being at the forefront of my childhood, from the Speak and Spell I had as an elementary school student, to calculators, early computers, and then the beginnings of the internet in the early to mid 90's.  My college experience perfectly mirrors the statement that "digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time".  That part is definitely real.  

I know many in my generation who didn't adapt to computers or the internet at all, beyond looking at the web or using their phone.  They are computer illiterates, most of them chose that.  

Speaking of which, when I took a job on a large project 10 years ago I was stunned at the number of millennials who do did know how to use a real PC.  They could use their phones and Chromebook, but when it came to navigating their way around a PC many of them were clueless.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 02, 2023, 05:05:20 PM
Hmm...I'm not really crazy about that term.  I was born in '75, slightly before what most consider a Xennial (77-83, coincidently the same years the original Star Wars films were released).  I can remember computers and technology being at the forefront of my childhood, from the Speak and Spell I had as an elementary school student, to calculators, early computers, and then the beginnings of the internet in the early to mid 90's.  My college experience perfectly mirrors the statement that "digital adulthood" group that basically grew up without the internet but that it came on so fast in our teens and college years that we adapted to it in real time".  That part is definitely real. 

I know many in my generation who didn't adapt to computers or the internet at all, beyond looking at the web or using their phone.  They are computer illiterates, most of them chose that. 

Speaking of which, when I took a job on a large project 10 years ago I was stunned at the number of millennials who do did know how to use a real PC.  They could use their phones and Chromebook, but when it came to navigating their way around a PC many of them were clueless. 

Yeah, you're the same age as my older sister (also '75), while I was '78. I do think there was a big difference, even between the two of us. 

I don't think she interacted with the home computer much in high school except for word processing. So for her it was a fancy typewriter. In the one year she attended college (lol), I don't think it was very common for students to have their own PC yet. But by my freshman year, it was very common. And then email was JUST starting to come on in regular usage while I was in college. I couldn't email my parents--they sure as hell didn't have email. I'm pretty sure I couldn't even email my sister at that point. Although she and her BF (now husband) were operating his marina on Lake of the Ozarks at the time, I'm not sure they had email accounts associated even with the business. 

Now, part of the difference between my sister and I, like utee's experience, is that I was a techie nerd even back in high school. My sister is very smart, but she is absolutely NOT a techie nerd. She's the opposite. So it's possible I was simultaneously ahead of this curve, while my sister was behind it. I think you may have made use of that early-mid 90s connectivity and internet in a way that I did and she didn't, despite you being the same age ahead of me as she was. 

But I still consider it wild the degree and the speed at which it changed the world. And then advance another decade and you add the smartphone... Someone who lived in 1920 might recognize the world of 1980. Probably the biggest changes in those 6 decades was TV, widespread electrification, and air travel. Someone who lived in 1970 would probably not recognize the world of 2023. We carry around, in our pockets, a portable communication device that can give us access to nearly all of the world's information... In seconds.. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 02, 2023, 06:20:27 PM
But I still consider it wild the degree and the speed at which it changed the world. And then advance another decade and you add the smartphone... Someone who lived in 1920 might recognize the world of 1980. Probably the biggest changes in those 6 decades was TV, widespread electrification, and air travel. Someone who lived in 1970 would probably not recognize the world of 2023. We carry around, in our pockets, a portable communication device that can give us access to nearly all of the world's information... In seconds..

I have heard it said that the world has changed more in the past 70 years than in the 2000 years before that.  Don't know how that was qualified, but I can believe it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 02, 2023, 06:27:44 PM
My Dad was born in 1917, in a house with no electricity.  His early years were not much different from 1,000 AD.  He recalled seeing his first car when he was about 8.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 02, 2023, 06:47:30 PM
. Someone who lived in 1920 might recognize the world of 1980. Probably the biggest changes in those 6 decades was TV, widespread electrification, and air travel. Someone who lived in 1970 would probably not recognize the world of 2023. We carry around, in our pockets, a portable communication device that can give us access to nearly all of the world's information... In seconds..
And porn!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 02, 2023, 06:48:18 PM
Yes yes I know I'm not paying enough attention to recruiting rankings. But I think Georgia is fine there too.
You're like the Michael Jordan of misrepresenting other people's ideas.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 02, 2023, 06:51:45 PM
I'm square in the middle of Gen X and proud of it.  I feel like Gen X was and still is severly unrepresented in today's media. 
Gen X is great because many of us still had feral, outdoorsy, you-have-to-earn-a-trophy childhoods and were young enough to understand and use the internet as it expanded into our everyday lives.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 08:46:43 AM
I can tell you from my banking days that lenders, at least in that industry, definitely factor in credit scores, but also several other things, like debt-to-income ratio. 
I could see looking at the score as a first blush, someone with a 400 means you need not look further.  But is it possible someone with a 750 could be a poor credit risk?

And it's turned into bragging rights at times since we can all access it pretty easily.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2023, 08:56:03 AM
I read an article last week that said anything over a 760 was merely for braggin rights
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 09:00:39 AM
I saw something like that also, and it makes sense there is a practical upper limit on such a thing as "crude" as a credit score, and it's not 850 (whoever decided to use such a scale anyway?).  Perfection if the enemy of good enough.

I do wonder if someone with a 750 or 725 could be a poor credit risk.  Obviously it would be possible in some extreme case, but maybe it's not that extreme.

Mine seems to bounce down after making a large purchase with a credit card, and then back up when I pay it off.  My mortgage seems to have zero impact on it.  I'm sitting on a pretty substantial real estate asset with the loan almost paid off but it doesn't seem to matter even though it's a large factor, much larger than any credit card thing, in terms of creditworthiness.  (I have a 10 year ARM, so I've been paying it down before that hits.)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2023, 09:02:14 AM
mine bounces, but only 5 points or less
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 09:22:46 AM
I put my real estate tax on a credit card, it's a substantial amount, paid off when due, but it causes my CR to drop maybe 25 points.

I put baseball on it as well, which is another fairly large amount.  At the end of the year I have a lot of different bills coming up that I charge.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 09:23:32 AM
In other news, my wife signed me up for CLEAR (which mildly annoyed me as I told her I didn't think it was worth it).  Maybe someone here has experience with it versus just TSA PC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on November 03, 2023, 09:26:11 AM
Are you not charged a convenience fee of 3% for paying property tax bill w a CC?

My county does that which is a deal breaker for using a CC to pay that bill.  I'd love the points but not at that cost. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 09:56:38 AM
Yes, there was a fee.  I thought it worth it, in my case, it tips me into Platinum territory on Delta, which has meant  a lot of upgrades for us worth more than the fee.

And maybe that isn't a good tradeoff, I thought about it.  These days so many folks are at Gold, it doesn't get you much.  We have a trip to Hawaii coming up and I kinda hope we get upgraded.  ATL -> HNL is lengthy.

My wife, bless her heart, I think overvalues such things by more than I do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 03, 2023, 11:56:56 AM
I could see looking at the score as a first blush, someone with a 400 means you need not look further.  But is it possible someone with a 750 could be a poor credit risk?

And it's turned into bragging rights at times since we can all access it pretty easily. 


Depends.  There again, debt-to-income ratio is a big factor as well.  I was never a loan officer so I'm just repeating some things I picked up from them 20 years ago, but in general you're probably right.  A low credit score might be a red flag, whereas a good credit score may merely mean "proceed to the next step and see if they can check some other boxes."  

If I have an 800 credit score, but low income and relatively heavy debt for my income bracket, any unforeseen happenstance could do my budget in and impede my ability to pay on a loan, making me a bad risk.  So then it could become a matter of how big and what type the loan is.  A small, unsecured loan?  I bet a lot of lenders would do it anyway.  Maybe even with bad credit.  A larger, secured loan that's going to get another lien slapped on something I "own?"  Some are still going to take that risk, maybe with higher interest rates.  A more sizeable unsecured loan, like say, a few thousand dollars?  Maybe I wouldn't be approved for that. 

Or in some cases in small towns, I've seen loan officers with authority to finalize loans without the approval of a lending committee make loans to people they know are good for it, who would never be approved anywhere else by cold analytics.  I've also seen that occasionally come back to bite them, but the theory is they're building up more goodwill in the community and generating more business in the long run.  

And in some cases--again, with lenders who have quite a bit of leeway to approve their own loans--it matters what kind of personality they have and how much they care about their track record.  I worked for a guy once who had never had a loan default and he was proud of that.  That guy wasn't going to take any risks.  Others don't care about the occasional default and will make riskier loans.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 03, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
Another factor is debt capacity, as in, you have X amount of debt but Y amount of credit open and could theoretically at any moment get into Y amount of debt.  To some extent that is factored into your credit score, tho, and is not a completely separate thing. 

Interestingly, many loan officers ignore outstanding medical bills to some degree.  I was told on the basis that medical bills are complicated, and some other reasons I won't go into.  Having now worked in the healthcare industry, I can certainly attest medical bills are complicated.  Unnecessarily so, imo.  So if your outstanding debt is largely medical bills, it may not hurt you as bad as, say, credit card debt.  So they said.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 03, 2023, 12:13:01 PM
I put my real estate tax on a credit card, it's a substantial amount, paid off when due, but it causes my CR to drop maybe 25 points.

I put baseball on it as well, which is another fairly large amount.  At the end of the year I have a lot of different bills coming up that I charge.

We put everything we can on our cards.  One gets us 6% back on groceries and streaming services, 3% on gas, which I calculated came out better for us than all the gas discount cards that are out there.  The other is a flat 2% back on everything, which we use for everything else.  Lots of cards do air travel miles, rotating categories each quarter with things like restaurants, clothing, entertainment, etc.  That stuff just doesn't fit our lifestyle so we go with the basic, boring cashback.  

It took my wife some getting used to because she's not a budget Nazi like I am.  I put it all aside and it nicely covers the Holidays for us, so we get a "free" Christmas out of it.  Nothing spectacular, but it's something.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 12:14:04 PM
The main thing that influences my CR seems to be how much credit I am using, based on the credit cards I have open.  So, if I cancel one card, my credit goes down and so does my CR.  It does not seem to be influenced by my home loan balance, at all.  The amount of credit I could access with a home equity loan is far greater than my total credit card "borrowing" amount.  

Anyway, we refinanced about 3 years ago and it wasn't mentioned.  I think the loan was about half the assessed value of the home.

I get notes occasionally from credit cards asking if I want to update my income.  They don't ask for verification.  And our income bounces around a bit.

I mentioned before how many of the new buildings going up here are apartments instead of condos.  My RE friend says the 30 somethings have income but a lot of debt and no down payment.  So, they rent, and never develop any equity.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 03, 2023, 12:16:26 PM
I worked for a guy once who had never had a loan default and he was proud of that.  That guy wasn't going to take any risks.  Others don't care about the occasional default and will make riskier loans. 
Kinda like the saying that if you've *never* missed an airline flight, you're getting to the airport too early. 

It includes an assumption that all people have the same risk tolerance and are maximizing for "least time spent waiting for their flight" which isn't always true. 

Granted, I know guys who live that way. An old boss was the type that it was almost a game how late he could wait leaving the office to go to the airport to catch a flight... Didn't want to spend an extra minute there. 

But that's not me. I absolutely HATE being late. For anything. And I have a low desire to deal with unforeseen changes--especially ones which come from my own lateness.

A few weeks ago when we went to Texas we knew we were cutting it closer than I like. We ended up leaving the house about 15 minutes later than I wanted. We hit literally ALL red lights to drop the dog off at boarding. Then we had to drive all the way up to LAX during morning traffic. We got off the 405 and traffic trying to get to the parking and then on the parking shuttle to the terminal were BRUTAL. My wife could tell I was stressed, which makes her mad because she then gets stressed, so she snipes at me for making her stressed, while I'm just hoping we get to the terminal in time to check bags. You're supposed to check bags 45 minutes before a flight. I think we were literally in between the 45th and 46th minute when we dropped them off. Once we did that, *I* could finally relax but my wife had the stress carryover and it took her a LONG time for it to pass. 

If every flight was like that for me because I was trying to cut it close such that I never waste an extra minute in an airport and thus risk missing flights? It would be excruciating and mentally exhausting and I wouldn't ever fly anywhere. 

I'd much rather get to the airport comfortably early. If it's the morning, I'll get a coffee (maybe breakfast) and read my Kindle. If it's the afternoon, I'll head to one of the terminal bars and have a beer. Some might call that "wasted" time. I call it my emotional moat to avoid unnecessary stress. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 03, 2023, 12:21:10 PM
My wife likes to be more early than I do for travel, and I like to be early.  She'll be wanting to leave 4.5 hours ahead of the flight.  It takes us ~50 minutes on MARTA and about the same if someone drives us.  

When I flew a lot for business, I could leave 45 minutes ahead of the flight, park in the short term parking, and walk to the gate and be 10 minutes ahead, no TSA stuff.  They had metal detectors turned way down.

But I agree the stress is not worth the extra hour.  Once we left, our friend driving us, and my wife said she forgot her phone, so we had to turn back.  My friend is not a fast driver, and we seemed to catch every light, I got a bit stressed.  We made it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 03, 2023, 12:23:15 PM
The main thing that influences my CR seems to be how much credit I am using, based on the credit cards I have open.  So, if I cancel one card, my credit goes down and so does my CR.  
That's one thing that gets me. I had my score >800. Then my wife's car was finally paid off, and so I have no loans tracked as all three cars are now owned free and clear, and only one credit card with a balance. And my credit score dropped ~50 points.  

It seems strange that it's almost like the way to make my credit score higher would be to go take on some more debt. :smiley_confused1:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 03, 2023, 12:24:28 PM
A few weeks ago when we went to Texas we knew we were cutting it closer than I like. We ended up leaving the house about 15 minutes later than I wanted. We hit literally ALL red lights to drop the dog off at boarding. Then we had to drive all the way up to LAX during morning traffic. We got off the 405 and traffic trying to get to the parking and then on the parking shuttle to the terminal were BRUTAL. My wife could tell I was stressed, which makes her mad because she then gets stressed, so she snipes at me for making her stressed, while I'm just hoping we get to the terminal in time to check bags. You're supposed to check bags 45 minutes before a flight. I think we were literally in between the 45th and 46th minute when we dropped them off. Once we did that, *I* could finally relax but my wife had the stress carryover and it took her a LONG time for it to pass.

Y'all are our California dopplegangers.  I can't tell you how exactly like me and Mrs. DeTiger that is.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 03, 2023, 06:44:59 PM
I haven't checked a bag in years.  It's a stressor, takes forever, and can get lost sometimes.
If I traveled with a woman who only brought a backpack like I do, that would be a colossal turn-on.  
And ladies can fit more clothes in a bag, because they're smaller.  
.
I don't have to take time packing, don't have to wait in that line, don't have to worry about it winding up in Albuquerque, don't have to go to baggage claim, etc.
It's a choice.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 03, 2023, 07:20:59 PM
I haven't checked a bag in years.  It's a stressor, takes forever, and can get lost sometimes.
If I traveled with a woman who only brought a backpack like I do, that would be a colossal turn-on. 
And ladies can fit more clothes in a bag, because they're smaller. 
.
I don't have to take time packing, don't have to wait in that line, don't have to worry about it winding up in Albuquerque, don't have to go to baggage claim, etc.
It's a choice.
We used to be like that, but AA does a great job, and because they put the priority tag on, our bags are in the claims are before we even get there. We have to go through that area anyway, to get to transport, so for us it's great.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2023, 07:25:46 PM
I don't mind checking my bag and/or golf clubs

don't have to carry anything, don't have to worry about overhead bin space

haven't had a bag lost,........... yet
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 03, 2023, 08:54:43 PM
I don't bring a carry-on, either.  Just a backpack.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 03, 2023, 08:56:24 PM
genius
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 03, 2023, 09:00:40 PM
Just a choice.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 04, 2023, 09:12:24 AM
My wife couldn't fit her shoes in a backpack, although she has gotten better about that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 04, 2023, 09:19:10 AM
yup, I don't fly often but when I do I'm either for work or extended personal visit.
Requires more clothing than I can fit in a backpack or carry-on
Also, business clothes don't do well in a backpack
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 04, 2023, 09:48:10 AM
I haven't checked a bag in years.  It's a stressor, takes forever, and can get lost sometimes.
If I traveled with a woman who only brought a backpack like I do, that would be a colossal turn-on. 
And ladies can fit more clothes in a bag, because they're smaller. 
.
I don't have to take time packing, don't have to wait in that line, don't have to worry about it winding up in Albuquerque, don't have to go to baggage claim, etc.
It's a choice.
I cannot believe that I have something other than cfb fandom in common with fro. 

If you pack a bag that is big enough to necessitate being checked, then you need to relinquish your man-card. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 04, 2023, 09:54:50 AM
I cannot believe that I have something other than cfb fandom in common with fro.

If you pack a bag that is big enough to necessitate being checked, then you need to relinquish your man-card.
Ever travel abroad for a month? Or travel from Florida to Chicago, then to Cabo, back to Chicago and then back to Florida? In January? Packing for a lot of climate there, which is what we normally do. This year we are going to Cabo, but straight from Florida and back. One large bag will be fine for us.

We do a lot of cooking there, so I need my knives and spices, etc.

It's impossible to not check a bag.

Cruises are nice because they do our laundry, but there are still events on board that require a suit or jacket.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 04, 2023, 10:07:19 AM
Once you get hitched, the man-card has already been relinquished. 

Go ahead and pack the big bag. The one that matches your wife's purse. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 04, 2023, 10:10:44 AM
For any extended travel, we pack a large and medium suitcase.  Of course, I have a wife, and we will often be attending events that require dressier clothes.

We're going to Paris and London for two symphonies, our music director is going to be conducting and the ASO is putting the trip together.  We'll be there on both ends as well and needing a lot of different clothes items and shoes.  My camera gear goes in my backpack, though I might not take it for this trip.

I hope to get hard details on that trip soon.  It "sounds" pretty neat to us.

I used to do one day trips for business at times and just did a carry on, back in the day.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 06, 2023, 09:36:52 AM
I prefer to travel with only carry-on. However for the fairer sex, there are often liquids associated with makeup / toiletries that they bring, which necessitates checking the bag, not necessarily the overall volume they're bringing. I.e. my wife and I usually travel with two carry-on sized roller bags, but we check them as she has things in there that can't be carried on. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2023, 09:41:02 AM
It depends also, as noted, on length of travel and purpose of visit.  I'll need at least a suit and dress shoes for Europe, maybe even the tux.  We'll need coats of course, it's February.  And it'll be over two weeks with no ready access to laundry, without spending vacation time on it.  At least on a cruise, we get one bag of laundry cleaned free, the second is $15.

My wife tends to think up all sorts of contingencies where she may need X Y and Q.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2023, 09:41:38 AM
I saw some FB list of "Five best colognes for men".  I didn't click on it.

There is a list for everything I guess.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 06, 2023, 10:54:15 AM
Yeah, you're the same age as my older sister (also '75), while I was '78. I do think there was a big difference, even between the two of us.

I don't think she interacted with the home computer much in high school except for word processing. So for her it was a fancy typewriter. In the one year she attended college (lol), I don't think it was very common for students to have their own PC yet. But by my freshman year, it was very common. And then email was JUST starting to come on in regular usage while I was in college. I couldn't email my parents--they sure as hell didn't have email. I'm pretty sure I couldn't even email my sister at that point. Although she and her BF (now husband) were operating his marina on Lake of the Ozarks at the time, I'm not sure they had email accounts associated even with the business.

Now, part of the difference between my sister and I, like utee's experience, is that I was a techie nerd even back in high school. My sister is very smart, but she is absolutely NOT a techie nerd. She's the opposite. So it's possible I was simultaneously ahead of this curve, while my sister was behind it. I think you may have made use of that early-mid 90s connectivity and internet in a way that I did and she didn't, despite you being the same age ahead of me as she was.

But I still consider it wild the degree and the speed at which it changed the world. And then advance another decade and you add the smartphone... Someone who lived in 1920 might recognize the world of 1980. Probably the biggest changes in those 6 decades was TV, widespread electrification, and air travel. Someone who lived in 1970 would probably not recognize the world of 2023. We carry around, in our pockets, a portable communication device that can give us access to nearly all of the world's information... In seconds..
I went to a small school district in a small town.  We had like 180-200 people in our graduating class.  We had computers in intermediate school (5th and 6th grade).  The lovely Apple IIe.  Damn those things were hardy.  We also used them in junior high, we used visicalc and that was the first time I heard the term spreadsheet. 

We played Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego.  I got my first computer around about 1986, the most popular home computer ever made, the Commodore 64. We mostly used it to play games, but I did tinker with simple programs from BASIC just copying the lines in the manual.  But it was cool anyways.  

When I was in HS I clearly remember there being a lot of talk about the "Information Superhighway", especially during the '92 Presidential election.  We had no idea what that meant.  It was all futuristic sounding, but nobody knew anything about the internet or email or anything.  

I learned to type on an electric typewriter.  I actually am quite good at typing, it's one of my best skills.  This was about 1992, or 10th grade.  We also had computers at school, 386 machines that we used to do word processing on.  I did take a computer programming class, Pascal.  We totally blew it off and didn't do shit and I've never actually even heard of the Pascal language outside of that one class.  

In 1994 my first year of college (Junior College at that) one of my professors was writing her information on the board and she put down her email address.  I had no idea what it was or how to use it.  That was the first time I recall seeing the @ symbol used that way.  Up until that point, the @ symbol was rarely used in my world.  We got a PC about that time, a 2nd hand 386 computer that had a dial up modem we used to connect to BBS and not much else.  

It seems like between about 1994-1995 things really took off with the internet.  Netscape became a big thing, and we could get on the internet at college on 486 PC's.  I transferred to A&M in 1996 and we had dial up internet included with our student fees ( I lived off campus, no ethernet for me).  I had a class in '96 or '97 where we had to do our chemistry homework on-line.  That was tough because you had to get all the units etc right.  I got my first real PC in 1996 or maybe early 1997, a Packard Bell 133 MHZ Pentium with 4 MB of memory.  I made my first online purchase around Y2k, maybe 1999 where I bought the components and built a PC.  It was a P3 750 MHZ with maybe 64 MB of RAM.  

It seems like within about 3-5 years the internet really took off, from about late 94-98 or so a lot of stuff moved online.  We had dialup internet at my house after college until at least the mid 2000's, maybe until like 2007/2008. I really don't remember but having high speed (2-3 MBps) back then was a real game changer.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 06, 2023, 11:08:14 AM
Ah....the 90's, where we had dial-up modems that made phone noises and everything. 

Prior to modems, my folks wouldn't spring for the Commodore 64 despite it being the home computer my friends had.  When we finally got one, they listened to a family friend they thought was a computer whiz and he said the 64 was basically a box with a wire attached to it...barely any actual computing capacity. 

So they got something called an IBM-compatible.  Now commonly known as PCs.  Frustrated me to no end that I couldn't share games on floppy disks with my friends, who had accumulated dozens by that point and would've been happy to let me borrow them.  No, I had to spend my time learning DOS and programs like WordPerfect and some early Newspaper printing program.

Just as I got really good at DOS, Microsoft decided to stick a GUI called Windows on it and hide the whole thing, never to be seen again by the average computer user. 

What I'm trying to say is, screw Microsoft.  Screw my folks for not getting me the Box-of-nothing Commodore 64 that I wanted, and screw the family friend who got them to do it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 06, 2023, 11:15:07 AM
53 in my high school class of 81
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 07, 2023, 07:39:07 PM
I saw some FB list of "Five best colognes for men".  I didn't click on it.

There is clickbait a list for every set of eyeballs thing I guess.
More accurate.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 07, 2023, 07:48:34 PM
lol @ WordPerfect, omg

Early computer games I recall fondly.....

No clue on the names, btw:

one where everyone is a different immobile tank thing, and you'd estimate the arc of your shot to go up and slowly back down, killing your friends.  It was so tame, but we played the shit out of it.  There were different, fun warheads you could use, too.
.
there was a very simple drug dealing game, where you'd just buy low and sell high at different spots around town.  Again, fully basic, but was fun.
.
Carmen Sandiego was fun in middle school at school.  It was easy - just an excuse to get kids to get some context with places around the world.  The TV show was so campy, made it less cool. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 07, 2023, 09:06:45 PM
one where everyone is a different immobile tank thing, and you'd estimate the arc of your shot to go up and slowly back down, killing your friends.  It was so tame, but we played the shit out of it.  There were different, fun warheads you could use, too.

The more popular was called Scorched Earth. My dad and the draftsman he employed used to always play a variant of it called Tank Wars every day at lunch. 

Fun stuff. As a senior in HS, I took a computer programming class. I quickly realized that the class was useless. I.e. "here's a for loop -- now let's spend the next three weeks practicing them." Yeah... No. I already knew all the stuff they were going to teach and didn't want to be bored out of my skull...

So the final project had to be one program that simply demonstrated that you could use all of the programming techniques. So I started my final project week 1.

It was writing a Scorched Earth / Tank Wars clone, in BASIC, for the Apple IIgs. Utilizing graphics capabilities that weren't part of the class. Hard-coding alphanumeric text into the graphics engine because it couldn't display text natively on top of graphics. Using random generation of terrain and parabolic equations to include wind effect on the projectiles. Even had 3 different sizes of warhead. It was fun. 

I got an A on that... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 07, 2023, 09:17:40 PM
Nerd. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 07, 2023, 10:05:57 PM
We'd play that until 3am sometimes, eating, drinking, shit-talking.  

A side-win would be using the weapon that heaps land onto your opponent and just burying him. He could never really lose, but he couldn't shoot anything and just get so frustrated, he'd suicide himself if possible.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 08, 2023, 07:02:34 AM
Nerd.
Brad.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2023, 08:35:15 AM
The more popular was called Scorched Earth. My dad and the draftsman he employed used to always play a variant of it called Tank Wars every day at lunch.

draftsmen had the best computers for gaming

I was one
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 08, 2023, 08:49:53 AM
There was a "Star Trek" game I used to play in a IIe at work some.  A trick was to get a Klingon to fire a photo at you and move and have another Klingon ship opposite that would get hit.

There also was Lunar Lander.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 08, 2023, 09:30:08 AM
draftsmen had the best computers for gaming

I was one
Yeah, my house always had a great computer for the day that my dad planned to learn AutoCAD. Which he never actually got around to doing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2023, 09:34:43 AM
My first venture into sales
I was the AutoCad dealer for my region
also the president of the user group

great trips to Sausalito for training and such
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 08, 2023, 09:36:34 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/90SqmIv.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 09, 2023, 10:17:35 AM
Scorched Earth.  We played it in HS, I'm pretty sure.  I have a game on my phone that is similar.  

I vaguely remember the drug dealing game or it seems like I remember it.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 09, 2023, 10:23:56 AM
I played D&D one night somewhere, not on computer, but the hosts had an Apple I, yes, the One.  It'd be worth something today.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 09, 2023, 10:29:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/90SqmIv.png)
Final analysis product. We now have most of this subdivision surveyed.


(https://i.imgur.com/zQb186Z.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 09, 2023, 12:30:08 PM
SF restaurant named one of the best new restaurants in US (sfgate.com) (https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/best-new-restaurant-america-eater-sf-18475787.php?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR0dYDHHzyQTFb8bMplIEGL6bBsLYYJqH9OGzL-7GMjivowOg7flNto0mg0)

Eater’s Best New Restaurants in America 2023 - Eater (https://www.eater.com/2023/11/7/23949168/eaters-best-new-restaurants-america-2023)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on November 09, 2023, 12:39:20 PM
Drafting computers were great for gaming because they had/have the computing horsepower for the CADD program. Then, as now, all drafting programs need a disgusting amount of computing horsepower and internal memory.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 09, 2023, 06:23:01 PM
and great graphics are nice went staring at the screen for 10+ hours a day
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 12, 2023, 06:39:13 AM
Speaking of football "polls"/rankings, we have three now that get attention, of course.  The CFP ranking differs only slightly from the other two.  I know it sounds authoritative to have some collection of CFB giants form a committee to contrive such things, but basically it yields the same overall result as the AP with an exception every so often.

And there is a 30 minute show to reveal it on Tuesday (clicks).  I suppose it matters to some if their team is 12th instead of 14th, it does matter if they are 5th instead of 4th.  And notice how computer polls are now relegated to the back pages.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 12, 2023, 07:17:11 AM
Times Higher Education: Top 20 universities in the world (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/times-higher-education-top-20-universities-in-the-world.html?utm_content=makeit&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook|makeit&fbclid=IwAR0VADrpNagtX37a5IONGobiSfmas-wvWMYfEIpzkybxy69ulCPHUSQZGe4)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 12, 2023, 10:06:51 AM
Speaking of football "polls"/rankings, we have three now that get attention, of course.  The CFP ranking differs only slightly from the other two.  I know it sounds authoritative to have some collection of CFB giants form a committee to contrive such things, but basically it yields the same overall result as the AP with an exception every so often.

the committee has greater power to "correct" things in the final poll to assure the proper programs get the proper matchups in the playoff
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 12, 2023, 10:20:14 AM
Times Higher Education: Top 20 universities in the world (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/times-higher-education-top-20-universities-in-the-world.html?utm_content=makeit&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook|makeit&fbclid=IwAR0VADrpNagtX37a5IONGobiSfmas-wvWMYfEIpzkybxy69ulCPHUSQZGe4)

Oxford!  Oxford!  Oxford!

I will say that the smartest person I've ever known, did his undergraduate work at Oxford in electrical and acoustical engineering, and he did his masters and doctoral work in acoustics at the University of Texas.  He was my TA in a couple of different classes and became one of my dearest friends.  He was not only the smartest person I've ever known, but one of the kindest, friendliest, and best people, I've ever known.

Sadly he passed away a few years ago from colon cancer, at the age of 45.  Just way too young.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on November 12, 2023, 10:42:36 AM
I did a study abroad program at Oxford in law school, and I was so amazed that they had a bar in the basement of the dorm.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 12, 2023, 10:47:50 AM
My neighbor got his PhD at Harvard and postdoc'd at Oxford, in physics, so he checked some big boxes.

Almost as impressive as my BS from UGA...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 12, 2023, 11:00:29 AM
College football rankings: Michigan, Ohio State swap spots in ESPN's Week 12 FPI top 25 (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-michigan-ohio-state-swap-spots-in-espns-week-12-fpi-top-25-220171032/#2299250)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 14, 2023, 08:44:46 AM
Top 25 Best Places to Live in the Southeast - Livability (https://livability.com/topics/where-to-live-now/top-25-best-places-to-live-in-the-southeast/?fbclid=IwAR166qKtomsif3w0w5S1ReWpMnLWOin5VMfXHteYfzAQuBt1YvO-PAPgMJw)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 14, 2023, 07:08:35 PM
Orlando?

No.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 14, 2023, 07:12:24 PM
Anywhere in Florida.. no
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 14, 2023, 07:36:08 PM
Orlando?

No.
hey, I actually kinda really like Orlando. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 14, 2023, 07:37:42 PM
Fort Lauderdale at #9 seems strange to me. Lauderdale kinda sucks. Miami is far better and so is basically anywhere in Palm Beach county. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 14, 2023, 07:45:50 PM
I've had some good times in Fort Lauderdale with my late cousin back in the 90s
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 14, 2023, 11:31:06 PM
Anywhere in Florida.. no
badgerfan, HB, and MDot thank you for your support.

(Did I miss anyone? Everyone seems to be moving to Florida...)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 15, 2023, 06:22:45 AM
Everyone DOES and SHOULD have their own criteria.  Maybe such a list brings to mind a place you've never seen and should, maybe.  Greenville, SC is surprisingly nice downtown.  I've seen Clayton, GA suggested for retirees a few times.  Do you prefer mountains or the beach?  Do you like seasons?  Are you into cultural things?

Where we live would not be suitable for many here, no doubt, but we like it a lot.

A lisr would be better, I think, if titled "Nice places to live you may not know about".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 15, 2023, 06:40:48 AM
Everyone DOES and SHOULD have their own criteria.  Maybe such a list brings to mind a place you've never seen and should, maybe.  Greenville, SC is surprisingly nice downtown.  I've seen Clayton, GA suggested for retirees a few times.  Do you prefer mountains or the beach?  Do you like seasons?  Are you into cultural things?

Where we live would not be suitable for many here, no doubt, but we like it a lot.

A lisr would be better, I think, if titled "Nice places to live you may not know about".
100%. different people value different things. no one size fits all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 15, 2023, 06:41:35 AM
badgerfan, HB, and MDot thank you for your support.

(Did I miss anyone? Everyone seems to be moving to Florida...)
yeah, it's honestly getting fcking ridiculous now. traffic is the worst it's ever been and home prices are insane. they were always kinda high here relative to other parts of the US and i get that they're up everywhere, but the increase in home & rental prices in South Florida has been looney tunes.

my advice....don't move to Florida. it's terrible here. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 15, 2023, 06:53:25 AM
I had lunch with my realtor friend the other day.  He said the market is cooling here because of interest rates, but supply of single family is still way down.  Folks who own don't want to sell and lose that 3% mortgage. So, prices remain high, and a lot of new sales are relos, and the company is involved in making the transition easier because they need the workers here.

Apartments are springing up all over because the 30 somethings can't borrow.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 15, 2023, 07:01:34 AM
I had lunch with my realtor friend the other day.  He said the market is cooling here because of interest rates, but supply of single family is still way down.  Folks who own don't want to sell and lose that 3% mortgage. So, prices remain high, and a lot of new sales are relos, and the company is involved in making the transition easier because they need the workers here.

Apartments are springing up all over because the 30 somethings can't borrow.
yup.

supply crunch everywhere (shortage of millions of new homes being built in the decade following the '08-'09 crash + COVID derailing supply chains/production) PLUS folks not willing to sell and lose that 3% mortgage = going to keep prices high for awhile.

Apartments going up everrrrywhere here too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on November 15, 2023, 07:34:19 AM
yeah, it's honestly getting fcking ridiculous now. traffic is the worst it's ever been and home prices are insane. they were always kinda high here relative to other parts of the US and i get that they're up everywhere, but the increase in home & rental prices in South Florida has been looney tunes.

my advice....don't move to Florida. it's terrible here. :)
No, no, no. Y’all told me how great it was, so I’m coming down. It being popular was good, and I’ll help it stay that way! (Popular, that is)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on November 15, 2023, 07:35:54 AM
hey, I actually kinda really like Orlando.
In all seriousness, do you mean the city itself or the suburbs?

I think I’ve been to three or four different spots in Florida and I generally found some thing I modestly enjoy about all of them. Except for Orlando. It felt very much like a unpleasant tourist trap. Although I have a friend who grew up in the suburbs and seemed to generally like the area.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 15, 2023, 07:51:27 AM
I'd put Orlando up as my least favorite FL city, but it's because of the tourists and the traps.  I'm not interested in the theme parks at all.  The city part itself is OK, traffic of course, I think living on the outskirts could be fine, in the right place.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on November 15, 2023, 07:52:22 AM
In all seriousness, do you mean the city itself or the suburbs?

I think I’ve been to three or four different spots in Florida and I generally found some thing I modestly enjoy about all of them. Except for Orlando. It felt very much like a unpleasant tourist trap. Although I have a friend who grew up in the suburbs and seemed to generally like the area.
downtown Orlando and nearby suburban areas like Winter Park are really damn nice.

anywhere off I-4 near the theme parks or the outlet malls- terrible. nightmare. and I feel like that is the Orlando 99.9% of people visiting see.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 15, 2023, 11:23:15 AM
Haven't been to Orlando in about 20 years or so, but I recall really like it.  What I enjoyed at 20ish might be different than what I'd enjoy at 40-whatever-I-am-now. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 17, 2023, 02:19:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/rmYuuOU.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 17, 2023, 08:53:25 PM
Now THAT is art!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 17, 2023, 08:55:45 PM
Hey we have a Hotties Thread for that
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 17, 2023, 08:57:08 PM
But it's art!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2023, 09:10:08 PM
Hey we have a Hotties Thread for that
it got buried under the "hate michigan" thread
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 22, 2023, 06:22:02 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Bm1MZhl.png)

The only reason I can imagine to have these things is "clicks".  The final one matters of course, but only for the top ten or so, really top 4.  Whether a team is at 15 or 18 ... meh.  They have a whole show to reveal these.  They start late in the season of course for some reason, as opposed to just having them come out in final form.

Football is weird.

My other quibble is, imagine OSU beats UM in a situation where UM outplays OSU but some freak happenings give it to OSU, and then UM drops in the rankings to 6 or so.  Anyone watching the game understands UM looked a lot better but had some tough breaks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 28, 2023, 03:56:20 PM
Analysis: Atlanta ranked No. 2 hottest rental market in the country | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/analysis-atl-ranked-no-2-hottest-rental-market-country)

Detroit is third, Minny if first, Cincy is fourth.  This is calculated apparently by some meaure of vacancies.  So, a place that has few vacancies ranks high even if demand is modest.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 04:05:26 PM
in my daughter's example, Minnie seems to be very expensive

course she's in West Maka Ska, formerly known as West Calhoun, a neighborhood in the city of Minneapolis 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 06:28:17 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/i9piafQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 06:30:13 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/OtiIqWV.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 06:31:46 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8jz4X55.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 28, 2023, 07:23:08 PM
If the committee's task is ranking the 4 best teams, they failed.  FSU w/o Travis is hot garbage.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 28, 2023, 07:28:16 PM
1 - Georgia
2 - Michigan
3 - Warshington
4 - FSU
5 - Oregon
6 - OSU
7 - Texas
8 - Alabama
.
Texas and Alabama can earn their way over OSU and probably the Oregon-UW loser, especially Bama.
I can't fathom anyone suggesting FSU is "better" now than 1-loss, XII champ Texas or a 1-loss SEC champ Bama.

Whoever the 1 seed winds up being, they'd love the layup FSU would provide.
And Georgia can lose in Atlanta and still be in the playoff.
Another meaningless game.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 07:37:12 PM
If the committee's task is ranking the 4 best teams, they failed.  FSU w/o Travis is hot garbage. 
the task is to do it next week

this week doesn't matter
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 28, 2023, 07:53:32 PM
Ohio State will obviously fall relative to all of the teams that play an extra game (and win).

Nothing surprising here but if the committee didn't put Texas ahead of Oregon this week then I don't think they will next week, if both teams win.

So Texas' only chance to get in is an FSU loss (possible), or a Michigan loss (lol).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 28, 2023, 08:55:37 PM
Wow. Doesn’t really make sense to me. Not that I’m jumping up and down for Texas to get into the 4 team playoff. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 28, 2023, 09:00:30 PM
And normally I’d be way down on any Big 12 team trying to make the cut. Beating UH and Baylor isn’t much of a resume. But this team took down Bama, at their House. It’s almost like they’re ignoring that game. Admittedly, Bama has dropped a notch or two these last few years, but they’re still 11-1.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 09:33:32 PM
I'd blame the Big 12 commish
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 28, 2023, 10:01:27 PM
Well, that guy IS a tool, but I don't think even he hates Texas as much as the selection committee.  It is what it is.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 28, 2023, 10:03:46 PM
Just ranking teams by number of losses.  8 year olds, dude.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2023, 10:04:20 PM
there's a good question........ who ARE the members of the committee this season?

Doc Tom Osborne isn't on there so, ya can't blame him
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 07:30:06 AM
There will always be a controversy about who is selected last, and next year, probably next to last, and then the order (as 5th will be tougher than 4th).

I don't think they take injuries into account, just performance to date.  So, yeah, undefeated P5 teams will always be ahead of one losers, always, with perhaps a very unusual exception.  I was thinking about Ohio State a bit, playing on the road basically even with the #2 team in the country, and how they'd get dinged down to 6-7-8 for it.

A better way would be to let Vegas do this, but that can't happen.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on November 29, 2023, 08:13:56 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FRESH OFF THE PRESS<br><br>Who’s pumped about the newest CFP Top 25? <a href="https://t.co/fvAZ7Q6I5m">pic.twitter.com/fvAZ7Q6I5m</a></p>&mdash; Pat McAfee (@PatMcAfeeShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1729654534576775575?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 08:20:44 AM
Tulane is pumped
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 08:33:02 AM
There will always be a controversy about who is selected last, and next year, probably next to last, and then the order (as 5th will be tougher than 4th).

I don't think they take injuries into account, just performance to date.  So, yeah, undefeated P5 teams will always be ahead of one losers, always, with perhaps a very unusual exception.  I was thinking about Ohio State a bit, playing on the road basically even with the #2 team in the country, and how they'd get dinged down to 6-7-8 for it.

A better way would be to let Vegas do this, but that can't happen.
They've already specifically stated that they CAN take injuries into account.

In FSU's case, provided they win, then I don't think the committee will keep them out.  But they've already stated that they can and that it's part of what they're looking at.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 08:37:45 AM
OK, I didn't see that one.  Sure, FSU at 13-0 is in the CFP, no doubt.  We could have four undefeateds for the first time.  Makes it simple anyway.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 08:42:57 AM
OK, I didn't see that one.  Sure, FSU at 13-0 is in the CFP, no doubt.  We could have four undefeateds for the first time.  Makes it simple anyway.


It comes back to the question of "best teams" versus "deserving teams."

At 13-0, FSU would appear to be a "deserving team."  But without their starting QB, there's certainly some doubt as to whether or not they're one of the four "best" teams.

So, what is the mission of the Selection Committee?  4 best teams?  4 most deserving teams?  Or none of the above?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 08:47:40 AM
I think it reads "four best teams for the playoff", which arguably is different from "foud best teams" ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:00:03 AM
the committee does what ESPN and the SEC instruct them to do

most of us know this

it would seem that the SEC would favor Texas, as they are joining next season
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 09:02:29 AM
I don't know how any of us could KNOW this.  It's speculation based on inference and feelings, not fact.

I'm sure they are influenced by past year's performances and outcomes.  Is there a year when an SEC got in when they clearly should not have?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:14:40 AM
come on Cincy, it's easy to hate ESPN and the SEC SEC SEC

Oh wait, you are an SEC guy!

damn
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 09:16:24 AM
I try not to be an SEC guy.  One nice thing about all these discussions is that it enlarges my interest in CFB, which is nice when my team is down.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:18:39 AM
you almost had me fooled
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 09:20:41 AM
The "SEC SEC SEC" stuff tends to be for teams that finish 3rd or lower in the SEC, I think.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:23:37 AM
agreed

shirttails 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 09:26:04 AM
The strongest conference debate this year should be pretty unclear, I think.  I'd probably go B1G at this point, PSU and Mizzou MIGHT face off in that one.

Bama-OSU would be fun.

Many would like to see UGA-UM.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 09:27:36 AM
I chanted "SECSECSEC" mockingly at Arkansas as they lost their final game in Austin, after they announced their plan to leave the SWC for the SEC back in '90.

I can't imagine I'd ever chant it again, but if Texas manages to beat OkState and win the B12 championship on Saturday, I'm sure there will be some surly Longhorn fans in JerryWorld, chanting it in an effort to mock dickface Yormarck for his clear anti-Texas bias.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:28:39 AM
in a few years or decades that's what it might be

Big vs SEC postseason

the rest just won't matter or be worthy of the $$$ that is generated
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 09:29:20 AM
in a few years or decades that's what it might be

Big vs SEC postseason

the rest just won't matter or be worthy of the $$$ that is generated
Next year with a 12-team playoff, how many spots do we think will be taken by B1G and SEC teams?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 29, 2023, 09:31:52 AM
Do you get the feeling that Yormark/Big 12 will really pull the punches to let oSu win the game?  To the point where it's egregious?  oSu is a decent team, they wouldn't need much help to win.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
Next year with a 12-team playoff, how many spots do we think will be taken by B1G and SEC teams?
well, the current top 12 shows only FSU as a team that won't be in the SEC or B1G next season

so, probably at least 8
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on November 29, 2023, 09:35:23 AM
Do you get the feeling that Yormark/Big 12 will really pull the punches to let oSu win the game?  To the point where it's egregious?  oSu is a decent team, they wouldn't need much help to win. 
Nine
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 09:35:41 AM
Do you get the feeling that Yormark/Big 12 will really pull the punches to let oSu win the game?  To the point where it's egregious?  oSu is a decent team, they wouldn't need much help to win. 
apparently, it's already been egregious in the reg season
I certainly felt it was egregious the season UNL was on their way out

I'd say it really will happen
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 09:36:59 AM
Do you get the feeling that Yormark/Big 12 will really pull the punches to let oSu win the game?  To the point where it's egregious?  oSu is a decent team, they wouldn't need much help to win. 

Absolutely.  They've been doing it all season.  In B12 play, Texas is both the most penalized team, and the team whose opponents are the least penalized.

(https://i.imgur.com/csZW4l1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: HailHailMSP on November 29, 2023, 10:37:31 AM
the committee does what ESPN and the SEC instruct them to do

most of us know this

it would seem that the SEC would favor Texas, as they are joining next season

If Bama wins Texas may be the only "SEC" team in the playoff. Bama & FSU winning will bring about some serious politicking for 16 hours. No SEC or no undefeated conference champ, or no BIG 12 conference champ with a win on their resume over the SEC Champ. One of those will happen. It will cause more drama than any prior year. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 10:52:30 AM
FSU winning they are in with a lock - undefeated conf champ
Same for Washington

Bama and Oregon winning winning and you have 4 one loss teams fighting for 2 spots

fun stuff
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 11:11:29 AM
If all the undefeated teams win, there shouldn't be any drama.

If not, well...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 29, 2023, 11:34:20 AM
I think there'd still be drama about Florida State.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 11:39:03 AM
the talkin heads would talk about it, but an undefeated conf champ is a lead pipe lock
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 11:41:59 AM
the talkin heads would talk about it, but an undefeated conf champ is a lead pipe lock
Yeah, I agree.  The "drama" would come from a handful of mediots but putting in an undefeated P5 conference champ is a no-brainer from the committee's point of view.  It lets them completely off the hook in making decisions about 12-1Texas.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 11:55:13 AM
What would be fun, for me, however improbable:

Dawgs win of course.

OkSU wins.
Laville wins.
Oregon wins.
Iowa somehow wins.

Oregon is in, and then ....  Michigan?  UDubb?  OSU?  TCU?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 11:56:07 AM
What would be fun, for me, however improbable:

Dawgs win of course.

OkSU wins.
Laville wins.
Oregon wins.
Iowa somehow wins.

Oregon is in, and then ....  Michigan?  UDubb?  OSU?  TCU? 


Your scenario sucks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 12:19:53 PM
he didn't say it would be fun for everyone
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2023, 12:20:45 PM
fun for Hawkeyes, the Big 10 commish, and Buckeyes

and the Big 12 commish
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 12:22:00 PM
OK, so you know what would be fun for ME?

Georgia loses.  Like, badly.  56-3.

That's it.  That's the fun scenario.

The End.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 12:26:04 PM
More fun for utee would be UGA and UT meet in the final NCG game and Texas blows them out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 12:36:52 PM
More fun for utee would be UGA and UT meet in the final NCG game and Texas blows them out.

Even a 1 point UT win in that scenario, would do. ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 12:50:01 PM
10-9?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 12:53:25 PM
10-9?
Would be fitting, yes?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 01:02:01 PM
Fitting, I guess, yes.  The Dawgs don't have a defense as good as that Texas team did.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 01:06:10 PM
Fitting, I guess, yes.  The Dawgs don't have a defense as good as that Texas team did.
Nobody does anymore.  It's a different era.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 01:09:32 PM
Yeah, pretty much very different.  

UGA's D this season has come up for some criticism, from fans, as one can imagine, but it's still decent.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 29, 2023, 01:21:17 PM
UGA D is quite good.  It's just not what it was the last two years and that makes fans think it's "down."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 29, 2023, 01:28:43 PM
Its hard for me to know how good Texas' defense is.  I'll get back to you whenever we play a game without the Rig12 refs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 04:21:35 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jPxCKP1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 29, 2023, 04:39:39 PM
A thing I like about that QB rating is he's honest enough to show history.  Several started high and ended low and vice versa.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 29, 2023, 04:59:52 PM
This is really what's driving CFB (as we all know):

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1729906888819798303

World Series games by comparison:



(https://i.imgur.com/YlqwhEe.png)

Notice how the highest rated games are far in the past.  It's well known that an average NFL game attracts more viewers than any MLB game.  Now college is edging up.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on November 29, 2023, 05:00:35 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/RdhE7zq.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on November 30, 2023, 01:18:46 PM
The playoff group is still pretty in flux. 

Georgia-Alabama
Michigan-Iowa
Texas-Okie State
Louisville-FSU
Oregon-Washington

All of these drastically impact the field and really and no one is safely in

The easiest thing is Georgia, Michigan, Washington, and FSU win. They would all be in with little controversy as all would be undefeated champs. The wildest is if Alabama wins, because they would almost certainly be in as the SEC champ, but makes for big questions on what you do with Georgia and Texas (who, if you remember, beat Bama handily at Bama). If all the favorites win except for Georgia, who is your field and in what order?

I'd go:




That would be a dream scenario for Michigan. The worst scenario (besides actually losing) is if FSU loses and committee convinces themselves to put in Georgia over Texas. 

Of course, we also still have a two team hope, which only happens, IMO, if Georgia and Michigan win and FSU and Texas lose. Then the ranking would be:


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 01:21:43 PM
Those all sound terrible.

Let's have Texas win, and FSU lose, and all other undefeated teams win.  Then it's:

Georgia
Michigan
Washington 
Texas

Yup, works for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2023, 01:37:56 PM
If UGA loses, they should be out of the discussion IMHO.  If every other favorite wins, I'd have the 3 UNDs and Texas personally.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 03:00:58 PM
order of comfort, should they win:

1 - uga, wash, mich, fsu  -all are undefeated and are obviously in with a win, no controversy.



2 - texas - best win of 1-losses, h2h vs another contender, resume is arguable but it's not 'worse' than others.
3 - bama and oregon - similar 1 loss teams, similar losses, bama wins 'look' better but oregon 'looks' better on eye test.



4 - osu - they can't be a p5 champ, which reaaaally hurts them. outside chance, but need a lot to happen. need mich/uga/wash to win, ut and fsu to lose. leaves them as the lone 1 loss team out there, and the bigxii and acc champs are basically out already.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 03:11:17 PM
the texas/bama/oregon argument is interesting to me. seems like if it's narrowed down to 2 (1 of them losses, other 2 win) then each team has a trump card over another. kinda like a rock/paper/scissors game.

oregon loses, bama and texas win, it's easy. texas has the h2h, they go.

texas loses, oregon/bama win, not as easy but sec bias and a stronger resume likely gives bama a fairly good edge here.

bama loses, texas/oregon win, biggest conundrum imo. texas no longer has the 'best win' and their resumes would converge some (not sure how much). texas also has easily the worst loss of the bunch. texas probably has edge in overall resume, but a big win vs a cfp contender right at end, not to mention it's a redemption win, likely gives oregon the nod. maybe also a little bias for the final p12 full conf season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 30, 2023, 03:20:57 PM
Texas' schedule >>> Oregon's and it's not close. 

Say Michigan wins, Georgia wins, FSU wins, and they're all in.  If Texas and Oregon both win, Texas should get the 4th spot over Oregon with no hesitation.  Oregon may have the better loss, but that's the same BS that was used to get Bama in over Okie St. in 2011.  It's literally 1 bullet point on a resume of many bullet points.  And Texas has numerous points to its advantage compared to Oregon. 

That how it should work.  How it will work may be an entirely different story.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2023, 03:32:35 PM
ESPN wants Oregon for better ratings, or so I've been told ....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 30, 2023, 03:35:57 PM
I'd think Texas draws excellent ratings just due to their massive fanbase alone, but what do I know. 

Don't mind me.  I'm a complete Oregon hater at the moment.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 03:43:45 PM
ESPN wants Oregon for better ratings, or so I've been told ....

Ha!

I'd think Texas draws excellent ratings just due to their massive fanbase alone, but what do I know. 

Don't mind me.  I'm a complete Oregon hater at the moment. 

FearlessCD is stirring the pot.

Texas would certainly draw more eyeballs than Oregon.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 03:48:34 PM
Speaking of ratings, this is shaping up to be the first, last, and only year, where the ACC championship is actually a game anyone cares about. ESPECIALLY if Oregon and Texas have already won on Friday night and Saturday afternoon.

I'm not sure the outcome of the Georgia/Alabama game would affect how many eyes are glued to FSU, since a lot of people are assuming the winner of that game is in, anyway.

But man, FSU-Lvl just might outdraw Michigan-Iowa in the primetime timeslot. Wouldn't THAT be something?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 30, 2023, 03:51:09 PM
I will root for Laville in that one just to mess things up.  And FSU hasn't beaten anybody.:57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:22:30 PM

Texas' schedule >>> Oregon's and it's not close. 

Say Michigan wins, Georgia wins, FSU wins, and they're all in.  If Texas and Oregon both win, Texas should get the 4th spot over Oregon with no hesitation.  Oregon may have the better loss, but that's the same BS that was used to get Bama in over Okie St. in 2011.  It's literally 1 bullet point on a resume of many bullet points.  And Texas has numerous points to its advantage compared to Oregon. 

That how it should work.  How it will work may be an entirely different story. 
schedule, yes, resume, probably but it's not as far off as you make it.

oregon will have the best win, a 'better' loss, and they will have avenged that loss

oregon will have wins over a top 10 team and a top 20 team, their lone loss will be to a top 10 team that they beat in a rematch and originally only lost on road by 3.

texas will have wins over a 10-15 ranked bama, 20-25 ranked ok st, and a #25 ksu. their lone loss will be to #12 ou by 1 score neutral site.

those aren't world apart. and the big win this week vs a top 3 (current) team when it's also avenging their loss, that's a strong narrative.

fwiw, i'd have texas in but i don't think that's clearly what should or will happen. mostly i'd have them in cause i picked them to win the title preseason lol
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:39:53 PM
schedule, yes, resume, probably but it's not as far off as you make it.

oregon will have the best win, a 'better' loss, and they will have avenged that loss

I keep hearing people say this, I'm not sure why that's a good thing?

What it actually means is that it took Oregon two tries to get it done, when Texas beat their top opponent in one try.

I'm not sure that rewarding a team for taking a mulligan is really all that praiseworthy.

But I suppose I could see how Alabama fans are more likely to forgive the mulligan, than others... ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on November 30, 2023, 04:46:04 PM
Texas SOS = #2
Oregon SOS = #56

UT opp. rec vs. FBS teams (removing H2H):  80-42 or .606
OR opp. rec. vs. FBS teams (removing H2H): 66-56 or .541

UT def. 7 bowl eligible teams, played 8
OR def. 5 bowl eligible teams, played 6

UT 5-1 vs. FBS winning record
OR 3-1 vs. FBS winning record

Simply looking at best win and best loss hardly tells the story.  Over the course of 12 games, Texas has an equal record against a statistically significantly more difficult schedule. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:48:52 PM
I keep hearing people say this, I'm not sure why that's a good thing?

What it actually means is that it took Oregon two tries to get it done, when Texas beat their top opponent in one try.

I'm not sure that rewarding a team for taking a mulligan is really all that praiseworthy.

But I suppose I could see how Alabama fans are more likely to forgive the mulligan, than others... ;)
bama loses and that might not be true. ou could be their top opponent.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:50:31 PM
bama loses and that might not be true. ou could be their top opponent.
Texas loses and it's irrelevant, so what?

If Oregon wins they're still taking a mulligan, not avenging a loss.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:56:35 PM
Texas SOS = #2
Oregon SOS = #56

UT opp. rec vs. FBS teams (removing H2H):  80-42 or .606
OR opp. rec. vs. FBS teams (removing H2H): 66-56 or .541

UT def. 7 bowl eligible teams, played 8
OR def. 5 bowl eligible teams, played 6

UT 5-1 vs. FBS winning record
OR 3-1 vs. FBS winning record

Simply looking at best win and best loss hardly tells the story.  Over the course of 12 games, Texas has an equal record against a statistically significantly more difficult schedule. 

And then there's all of this.  While Oregon was playing FCS in its OOC, Texas played entirely FBS teams, all of which will be going bowling.  Including, you know-- Alabama. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:56:43 PM
Texas loses and it's irrelevant, so what?

If Oregon wins they're still taking a mulligan, not avenging a loss.
bama losing is relevant because that's the scenario we're discussing, lol.

mulligan or not, they're getting a chance to beat the only team that's beat them. kinda the definition of avenge.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:57:23 PM
bama losing is relevant because that's the scenario we're discussing, lol.

mulligan or not, they're getting a chance to beat the only team that's beat them. kinda the definition of avenge.
Kinda the definition of mulligan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 04:58:35 PM
Kinda the definition of mulligan
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 04:59:13 PM
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.
Not sure why you've decided to be such an asshole.  Weird flex.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 05:03:05 PM
lol, i'm not being an asshole. i've already said texas' schedule is clearly better, and resume is also probably better. but it isn't so much that individual takes like "winning the mulligan" won't be a major consideration. or best win. or worst loss. or better late season win.

this isn't tulane you're comparing against.

don't take so much offense to someone disagreeing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 05:20:34 PM
Lulz.

Yeah okay.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 05:40:01 PM
lets look at them, shall we. again, scenario is oregon and texas both win, bama loses, so just comparing those 2. best to worst:

wash > bama - both will drop, but wash will be 5-8 range, bama will be 10-15 range.
ore st = ok st - ok st will drop to 20-25 range, which is where ore st is
utah = ksu - literally separated by 1 vote in ap poll
usc =< kansas - due to 1 win better record, but overall not much difference
tt = tt
cal =< isu - again, due to 1 win better record

the rest for both are all bad and don't really matter, but still...

wash st = tcu
colo = byu
stan = houston
zona st = baylor
hawaii < wyoming
port st << rice

and then the loses

wash > ou

again, slightly more ticks over to texas, especially in non-con. but it's not that dissimilar.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 05:53:00 PM
lets look at them, shall we. again, scenario is oregon and texas both win, bama loses, so just comparing those 2. best to worst:

wash > bama - both will drop, but wash will be 5-8 range, bama will be 10-15 range.
ore st = ok st - ok st will drop to 20-25 range, which is where ore st is
utah = ksu - literally separated by 1 vote in ap poll
usc =< kansas - due to 1 win better record, but overall not much difference
tt = tt
cal =< isu - again, due to 1 win better record

the rest for both are all bad and don't really matter, but still...

wash st = tcu
colo = byu
stan = houston
zona st = baylor
hawaii < wyoming
port st << rice

and then the loses

wash > ou

again, slightly more ticks over to texas, especially in non-con. but it's not that dissimilar.

You understand how probabilities work, don't you?  Small differences multiplied over and over and over.

Which is how you end up with outcomes like this:

https://twitter.com/mikerodak/status/1729230996783202563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1729230996783202563%7Ctwgr%5E032c34b1d68137092466aa56b6d8b90c80c6b0d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html1729230996783202563

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on November 30, 2023, 06:34:14 PM
you realize sagarin has oregon ranked above texas, right? so even despite the schedule difference, sagarin thinks it's close enough to rank oregon higher. or his formula does anyway. that's all i'm saying. it's close enough that other things matter as well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 06:52:05 PM
you realize sagarin has oregon ranked above texas, right? so even despite the schedule difference, sagarin thinks it's close enough to rank oregon higher. or his formula does anyway. that's all i'm saying. it's close enough that other things matter as well.
Yeah uh-huh okay.

Anyway, good luck to your team on Saturday. Should be an entertaining game.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 30, 2023, 07:20:57 PM
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.
I know how this works
ask Nubbz
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 30, 2023, 07:22:54 PM
Ha!

FearlessCD is stirring the pot.

Texas would certainly draw more eyeballs than Oregon.

Glad to see someone picked up the slack while I was working
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on November 30, 2023, 08:23:12 PM
Oregon v. Texas is a good debate. My gut is the committee would just slot in the Oregon/Washington winner as if they were one and the same.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 30, 2023, 09:09:12 PM
nah, mulligan isn't counted on score card. this one will. sorry.


I know how this works
ask Nubbz
A thieving 2nd shot employed by duffers to prove the 1st one was no fluke !!!

If Bama beats Georgia then the Dawgs are out,Can't leave the 'Horns out with Bama in unless they lose to the Pokes.Wouldn't bother me but the Texicans are said to be thinned skinned and sensitive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 30, 2023, 11:53:46 PM
Oregon Duffers.

Yup, has a nice ring to it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 01, 2023, 12:04:58 AM
If UGA loses, they should be out of the discussion IMHO.  If every other favorite wins, I'd have the 3 UNDs and Texas personally.
If UGA loses, they're still in.
Bama would be in, UGA would be in, UM, and UW/UO winner.

Yes, even at the expense of an undefeated FSU.
A - they suck w/o J.Travis
B - beating Louisville is a big WHO CARES now, since they lost to UK.

The 2-time defending NCs with a 12-1 record won't be omitted. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 12:37:19 AM
If UGA loses, they're still in.
Bama would be in, UGA would be in, UM, and UW/UO winner.

Yes, even at the expense of an undefeated FSU.
A - they suck w/o J.Travis
B - beating Louisville is a big WHO CARES now, since they lost to UK.

The 2-time defending NCs with a 12-1 record won't be omitted. 
Could certainly happen, but it would be the first time ever the committee has put in a non-champ over a champ, when they had the same record.  And it would look especially questionable given Texas H2H win over the same Alabama team that just knocked off the non-champ Georgia Bulldogs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 01, 2023, 01:02:50 AM
I'm just saying what would happen, not what should happen or that it would be 'right'.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 01:21:52 AM
It would break an entire decade of tendencies, but sure, it could still happen.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 01, 2023, 03:13:13 AM
It would break an entire decade of tendencies, but sure, it could still happen.
We haven't had a 2-time defending champ on the bubble in the playoff era yet.  So it's a novel situation.  
I have no faith in the playoff committee treating this season in isolation.  
.
Considering 2014-now, Texas is a 'Johnny-come-lately' and Georgia is royalty.  Shouldn't matter, but probably would.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on December 01, 2023, 07:52:01 AM
I see the argument for leaving FSU out, but man, leaving out an undefeated conference champ - I just don't see it happening.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 01, 2023, 07:57:42 AM
"We" here are trying to guess what the committee might do.  I'd be surprised if a 12-1 UGA is included over a13-0 FSU.  No need to speculate, for me anyway, I'll just wait and see what happens in a few days.  Hopefully it's not at issue.

I think any P5 undefeated should be in (barring eligibility issues).  It could be fun to speculate about Upsets happening around the globe and the mayhem that could ensue.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on December 01, 2023, 08:04:02 AM
I think if things break right the committee could have its toughest job yet.

A lot of interesting things could be debated.

-H2H wins 
-An undefeated P5 champion that looks vulnerable 
-A 2 time defending champion being left out after being #1 all season.
-Two teams splitting meetings, with identical records, but one has a better resume but not the conference championship.

I’m here for all of it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 01, 2023, 08:24:06 AM
Yeah, it's fun to speculate, which is why we do it.  We all have our personal preferences understand that the committee may well act differently.  One theory is they are affected by ESPN and TV ratings, in which case of course Texas would win over Oregon/FSU/most anybody else.

If TV ratings are a dominant consideration, we'd have Texas/Michigan/Alabama and then whoever.

I don't think they do personally.  I bet the topic never comes up in discussions at least.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on December 01, 2023, 08:33:18 AM
Yeah, it's fun to speculate, which is why we do it.  We all have our personal preferences understand that the committee may well act differently.  One theory is they are affected by ESPN and TV ratings, in which case of course Texas would win over Oregon/FSU/most anybody else.

If TV ratings are a dominant consideration, we'd have Texas/Michigan/Alabama and then whoever.

I don't think they do personally.  I bet the topic never comes up in discussions at least.




Nah, I’ve never bought into that. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 09:01:54 AM
Sweet summer children
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 09:13:20 AM
Anyway, we'll know the game outcomes within about 40 hours.  

And then, the magic happens... :86:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on December 01, 2023, 09:39:47 AM
Speaking of conspiracy theories, any way the Big 12 refs ensure a Texas L this weekend? Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 09:47:20 AM
Speaking of conspiracy theories, any way the Big 12 refs ensure a Texas L this weekend? Asking for a friend.
Well, the last time Texas played OkState, last year, they did it all sorts of ways.  Take a look at the penalty stat line.  And then take your pick.


(https://i.imgur.com/Y2eGT9i.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on December 01, 2023, 10:07:20 AM
Yeah uh-huh okay.

Anyway, good luck to your team on Saturday. Should be an entertaining game. 
same to you.

fwiw, imo, texas should be first of the 1-loss teams in.

If UGA loses, they're still in.
Bama would be in, UGA would be in, UM, and UW/UO winner.

Yes, even at the expense of an undefeated FSU.
A - they suck w/o J.Travis
B - beating Louisville is a big WHO CARES now, since they lost to UK.

The 2-time defending NCs with a 12-1 record won't be omitted.


imo, if it was fsu alone as the 5th contender, i could buy this. but you'll have wash/oregon, bama, mich, texas, and fsu. 1 of those are not getting in already. uga needs to either win, or hope 2 of fsu/mich/texas lose. jmo.


Anyway, we'll know the game outcomes within about 40 hours. 

And then, the magic happens... :86:


right? exciting couple days.

after all this hubbub, we're probably gonna end up with the most chalk scenario possible. mich, uga, wash, fsu all win, bama and texas lose.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2023, 10:08:49 AM
Huskers last season in the 12 vs A&M

(https://i.imgur.com/z01KIhH.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 01, 2023, 10:21:25 AM
I'm happy to have real CFB on TV tonight at least.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 01, 2023, 11:38:45 AM
David Pollack claims he talks to committee members and there's zero chance they leave out an undefeated FSU.  Guess we'll see.  Disagree that beating Louisville is "nothing" now that the 'Ville lost to Kentucky.  They're still a 10-2 team. 

I don't really care.  I just want Bo Nix to suck tonight, preferably lose, so the idgit voters will stop trying to hand him the Heisman.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 01, 2023, 11:56:55 AM
Heck, I could claim I talk to the members.  And he probably does talk with them, and they should in no way reveal to him their preferences beyond what is public.

And I think a 13-0 P5 team will be included no matter what, unless there are five of them.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 01, 2023, 12:05:42 PM
Somehow I've turned into a Texas-stumping Longhorn shill, as evidenced by this thread.  This is the last season I relinquish TV rights to my wife. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 12:29:58 PM
You've always been a closet horn, even before you married an i s c & a longhorn gal.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on December 01, 2023, 12:33:34 PM
You've always been a closet horn, even before you married an i s c & a longhorn gal.
it's true. he hates the aggies that much. just natural to him.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 12:37:52 PM
It is right and good to hate the aggies.

We told y'all how weird they were before they split for the SEC.  Now ya know first-hand!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on December 01, 2023, 12:46:38 PM
we all have our own version of weird, but theirs is... mighty.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 01, 2023, 12:51:37 PM
Somehow I've turned into a Texas-stumping Longhorn shill, as evidenced by this thread.  This is the last season I relinquish TV rights to my wife. 
nothing to be proud of Rusty
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 01, 2023, 01:15:41 PM
nothing to be proud of Rusty
Eh your brother is a longhorn lover too.  He's a good dude.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 01, 2023, 01:29:30 PM
it's true. he hates the aggies that much. just natural to him.

They're weird but I don't hate them.  They simply haven't beaten us enough or been important enough to ever hate, and I'm too young to care much about the old days when we frequently played ooc.  If I hate something about them, it's how they tried to manufacture a heated rivalry with us after they broke up with Texas, and the SEC went along with it.  We get it, you escaped what you perceived to be your abusive ex, but we just work at the shelter, we're not your new boyfriend, and you clearly are still fixated on your old one.  

Anyway, while I was never a Longhorn fan, I couldn't blame someone for being confused.  Was a time I made a few games a year at DKR and knew quite a bit about them, and had many burnt orange friends and so engaged in Texas-talk probably more than anything else.  I always knew I'd marry a Longhorn, but the team wasn't the preference there....the odd fact of the matter is the senses of Texas gals were weakened by the smell of crawfish and they let me punch way above my weight class, while Louisiana girls always saw me for what I was, an average looking schmuck of average means and average intelligence with a grumpy personality.  I wasn't looking for a Longhorn, per se, I just knew they were the only ones that would have me.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 01, 2023, 01:32:03 PM
nothing to be proud of Rusty

I'm Amos.

Anyway, there is the element of truth on my side in this discussion, so maybe I'm not a shill so much as I just like pointing out facts.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 01, 2023, 01:34:20 PM
Mike is a nice enough looking fellow, really, but he did punch above his weight.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on December 01, 2023, 04:57:45 PM
Massey composite rankings (96 rankings - last week in parenthesis)





Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 01, 2023, 05:19:45 PM
Massey composite rankings (96 rankings - last week in parenthesis)


  • MICHIGAN (2)
  • Georgia (3)
  • OHIO STATE (1)
  • Oregon (5)
  • Washington (4)
  • Texas (8)
  • Florida State (6)
  • Alabama (7)
  • PENN STATE (9)
  • Oklahoma (10)
  • LSU (11)
  • Missouri (15)
  • Ole Miss (14)
  • Notre Dame (16)
  • Kansas State (13)
  • Louisville (12)
  • Arizona (18)
  • Oregon State (17)
  • James Madison (22)
  • IOWA (19)
  • Liberty (20)
  • Clemson (24)
  • Utah (21)
  • NC State (-)
  • Tennessee (23)



  • 40. Maryland (43)
  • 45. Wisconsin (49)
  • 54. Northwestern (61)
  • 58. Rutgers (44)
  • 68. Illinois (70)
  • 69. Nebraska (71)
  • 72. Minnesota (68)
  • 78. Purdue (82)
  • 82. Michigan State (79)
  • 98. Indiana (94)

This top 5-6 is what my eyeballs tell me. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 01, 2023, 06:12:04 PM
Louisville sucks.  Or I guess they just suck vs teams with 3-9 records.
W by 7 over 3-9 Indiiana
L by 17 to 3-9 Pitt
W by 7 over 3-9 Virginia
.
I'd take any of the 1-loss teams over FSU.  The ACC blows.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: rolltidefan on December 02, 2023, 08:34:49 AM
so guess that Oregon problem was solved last night. glad we had that in depth discussion lol
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on December 02, 2023, 08:53:57 AM
so guess that Oregon problem was solved last night. glad we had that in depth discussion lol
That was kind of my exact thought.

it’s sort of funny, we talk about the playoff taking up all the oxygen. But in truth, we really like talking about that kind of stuff.

Because when it’s all said and done, the choices usually aren’t that hard.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 02, 2023, 08:55:09 AM
not hard to count losses
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 08:44:23 AM
That was kind of my exact thought.

it’s sort of funny, we talk about the playoff taking up all the oxygen. But in truth, we really like talking about that kind of stuff.

Because when it’s all said and done, the choices usually aren’t that hard.

You serious, Clark? ;)


I think the debate between FSU-Texas-Alabama-Georgia is going to be pretty tough for them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2023, 09:03:12 AM
There are, I think, three rankings now:

1.  The four best teams.
2.  The four teams the CFPC will choose.
3.  The four most deserving teams.

Michigan is in all four, but that's it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 09:12:23 AM
There are, I think, three rankings now:

1.  The four best teams.
2.  The four teams the CFPC will choose.
3.  The four most deserving teams.

Michigan is in all four, but that's it.
“ deserving” is a mirage.   “Best” is too.   Just opinions with no correct answer.  

on field results need to be the main thing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2023, 09:33:18 AM
“ deserving” is a mirage.  “Best” is too.  Just opinions with no correct answer. 

on field results need to be the main thing.
I agree, but I think "best" can be judged using Vegas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on December 03, 2023, 09:47:17 AM
“ deserving” is a mirage.  “Best” is too.  Just opinions with no correct answer. 

on field results need to be the main thing.
I think that last part is being treated as synonymous with “deserving.”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 03, 2023, 10:12:23 AM
I asked Google Bard (their ChatGPT equivalent):

Which teams will be chosen for this year's College Football Playoff and why?


Quote
The four teams selected for this year's College Football Playoff are:
  • Michigan Wolverines (13-0): The Wolverines are the undefeated Big Ten champions and have the most impressive resume of any team in the country. They have a strong offense led by Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback JJ McCarthy and a stingy defense that ranks among the best in the nation.
    [color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRn9wZqUqf-X0LD4LNNTBygxJxE_-Ky0eHWy9de9h3aQRYnD1kGarIxaPJf5KVG)Opens in a new window (https://www.maizenbrew.com/23817990/michigan-wolverines-football-roster-revealed-updated-2023-season)
    [/url][color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/favicon-tbn?q=tbn:ANd9GcTL8Vr0jywu8GgB0jQlWOJlWf7E_XEKteCWrRu84To2-WMP7GemsBROI14fkkIcPudyKTVPusu8tXdjLyvlFixlCGuwV5mP2YLSgkcu)[color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]www.maizenbrew.com[/color][/color] (https://www.maizenbrew.com/23817990/michigan-wolverines-football-roster-revealed-updated-2023-season)
    [color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]Michigan Wolverines football team[/color]


    [/font][/size][/color]
  • Washington Huskies (13-0): The Huskies are the undefeated Pac-12 champions and have one of the most explosive offenses in the country. They are led by quarterback Michael Penix Jr., who threw for over 4,300 yards and 32 touchdowns this season.
    [color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQh7qT806sRAERSUEwK6-bm7dXc3dWDLNmVcRRh4zvDz6g0bw0UD2OSgFCMzbO8)Opens in a new window (https://gohuskies.com/news/2022/10/31/football-uw-osu-set-for-friday-night-matchup.aspx)
    [/url][color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/favicon-tbn?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLMU6d6FYOh_b1gU6cl5qRxNOKzGEccB6Nwc6ttxT7wo-e_rFSFjTVt1K2-aKuJrKOlWNhQcLBHub8ZGYdtZ7MNt_CPgpxvQ)[color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]gohuskies.com[/color][/color] (https://gohuskies.com/news/2022/10/31/football-uw-osu-set-for-friday-night-matchup.aspx)
    [color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]Washington Huskies football team[/color]


    [/font][/size][/color]
  • Alabama Crimson Tide (12-1): The Crimson Tide are the one-loss SEC champions and have a history of success in the College Football Playoff. They are led by quarterback Bryce Young, who is a Heisman Trophy contender, and have a strong defense that ranks among the best in the nation.
    [color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLAQE5He1SfRfu5WlIkBJVC7Nxh4O5M10T9vNGndy0qpEEh458d8gc0X55wnW2)Opens in a new window (https://www.rollbamaroll.com/2023/2/15/23600882/alabama-crimson-tide-football-roster-update-2023)
    [/url][color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/favicon-tbn?q=tbn:ANd9GcRf0ylQqdmpY873d_gMYFHoMXSIT801OO9NwKOhRfucs31_CKxti7Mo6baMtbHs1RDKBZN7n4WPh68LCpIPqVb07O6IhSo5FIpkoIagTPQ)[color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]www.rollbamaroll.com[/color][/color] (https://www.rollbamaroll.com/2023/2/15/23600882/alabama-crimson-tide-football-roster-update-2023)
    [color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]Alabama Crimson Tide football team[/color]


    [/font][/size][/color]
  • Texas Longhorns (12-1): The Longhorns are the one-loss Big 12 champions and have one of the most talented rosters in the country. They are led by quarterback Quinn Ewers, who is a rising star, and have a strong defense that ranks among the best in the nation.
    [color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkNMFW0Lsgj5Kzzf9cYqn94IZ30j3dFALCRgOf6FkMhxj1NFyjdvRugMHo_2On)Opens in a new window (https://texassports.com/news/2022/12/26/no-20-football-preview-no-12-washington-alamo-bowl.aspx)
    [/url][color=var(--bard-color-primary)](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/favicon-tbn?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2JW6pANEWmxXoYYbcxxLt6H4damyph8xa4LtqMst6KBgsgV0J-GHydP9uIPjzH_zvr3KhfVoJLFLTnOxyqo-xvjV2OuIBW3kb)[color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]texassports.com[/color][/color] (https://texassports.com/news/2022/12/26/no-20-football-preview-no-12-washington-alamo-bowl.aspx)
    [color=var(--bard-color-on-surface-variant)]Texas Longhorns football team[/color]


    [/font][/size][/color]
These four teams are all very evenly matched and it will be a very exciting playoff. The Michigan Wolverines are the favorites to win the national championship, but the other three teams all have a chance to make a run.

AI has spoken.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 10:15:52 AM
I asked Google Bard (their ChatGPT equivalent):

Which teams will be chosen for this year's College Football Playoff and why?


AI has spoken.

The key phrase there is “ artificial “
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 03, 2023, 10:17:25 AM
"These four teams are all very evenly matched and it will be a very exciting playoff. The Michigan Wolverines are the favorites to win the national championship, but the other three teams all have a chance to make a run."

Glad AI pointed that out be kinda pointless playing the games otherwise?Who programmed that? One of those brilliant sideline reporter tarts
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2023, 10:18:22 AM
I asked Google Bard (their ChatGPT equivalent):

Which teams will be chosen for this year's College Football Playoff and why?


AI has spoken.

AI telling you Alabama is led by Bryce Young should be all you need to know.

He's playing today. NFL and all that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2023, 10:18:49 AM
The key phrase there is “ artificial “
^^^

There is another key.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 03, 2023, 10:21:09 AM
AI telling you Alabama is led by Bryce Young should be all you need to know.

He's playing today. NFL and all that.
Yeah, AI has been known to hallucinate from time to time.

That said, so have Bama fans. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 10:22:29 AM
Glad AI pointed that out be kinda pointless playing the games otherwise?Who programmed that? One of those brilliant sideline reporter tarts
hey, I love the reporter tarts, brilliant & or artificial,  or otherwise
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 10:23:34 AM
You serious, Clark? ;)


I think the debate between FSU-Texas-Alabama-Georgia is going to be pretty tough for them.
Georgia is out
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 11:12:32 AM
I asked Google Bard (their ChatGPT equivalent):

Which teams will be chosen for this year's College Football Playoff and why?


AI has spoken.

There's like a 51% chance the committee does this and posts it as their own.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 11:14:10 AM
Also, Chat GPT knows jack shit about college football (not enough volume of info, I guess).  I tested it out and it made vague, yet incorrect claims about a team and then doubled-down when questioned.
Only after I called it out a 2nd time did it acknowledge its limitations.

I then farted in its general direction.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 11:25:34 AM
Georgia is out

But they were the #1 team right up until last night at 11 PM.  2-time defending champs.  How do you leave them out?

These are actual conversations I'm hearing on ESPN right now.

Georgia in, FSU and Texas out.  It makes sense, because SEC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2023, 11:27:20 AM
What SHOULD be and what WILL be are often not the same.

UGA should be out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 11:31:51 AM
AP poll P5 teams ranking order, by number of losses:
0
0
1 - Texas
0 - FSU
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
.
So unless your carrying-his-team-on-his-back star QB is out for the season, it's just number of losses.  And even then, we just move you down 1 spot.
Schedule doesn't matter AT ALL.
MOV doesn't matter AT ALL.
Honest to god, give the vote to a 2nd-grade class. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 11:37:30 AM
Colley Matrix:
https://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html


1.     Washington        1.014040    13-0
2.     Michigan        0.989841    13-0
3.     Texas        0.955721    12-1
4.     Alabama        0.954965    12-1
5.     Florida St        0.949564    13-0
6.     Ohio St        0.915625    11-1

7. Georgia         0.904889 `12-1


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 11:54:18 AM
But they were the #1 team right up until last night at 11 PM.  2-time defending champs.  How do you leave them out?

These are actual conversations I'm hearing on ESPN right now.

Georgia in, FSU and Texas out.  It makes sense, because SEC.
this is true
because the SEC is accustomed to having 2 teams in the playoff
but, not this season
because, FSU, Washington, & Michigan are undefeated
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 11:55:10 AM
Colley Matrix:
https://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

the Aggies mascot has a ranking system?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 11:58:58 AM
this is true
because the SEC is accustomed to having 2 teams in the playoff
but, not this season
because, FSU, Washington, & Michigan are undefeated

Committee don't care.


SEC SEC SEC!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 12:17:33 PM
Committee don't care.


SEC SEC SEC!
yup, they're gonna put Bammer in over your Horns

it ain't right, but they don't care
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 12:19:57 PM
yup, they're gonna put Bammer in over your Horns

it ain't right, but they don't care
And Georgia over FSU.  Which is probably the right call.  FSU wasn't all that great even with their starter, the ACC is just terrible.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 12:25:22 PM
WOW.  I really thought they'd leave Texas out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 12:32:20 PM
WOW.  I really thought they'd leave Texas out.
You sound disappointed, lol
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 03, 2023, 12:34:35 PM
You sound disappointed, lol
Ha!  No.  Surprised for sure, but I'm tickled pink.

I like this field, I think any of these 4 teams could beat any of the others.  Should be a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 12:35:15 PM
I'm happy for Texas.  College football is best when the bluebloods are good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 12:47:01 PM
Back to the AP poll real quick......this AP poll is the first time Michigan is ranked #1 since 1997.  
That astounds me.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 12:49:49 PM
And Georgia over FSU.  Which is probably the right call.  FSU wasn't all that great even with their starter, the ACC is just terrible.
The ACC had a winning record versus the SEC this year.   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 12:54:21 PM
The ACC had a winning record versus the SEC this year. 
It's true.

GT and USCe suck.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 03, 2023, 12:55:45 PM
It's true.

GT and USCe suck. 
And Florida.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: CatsbyAZ on December 03, 2023, 12:56:04 PM
Soon as ESPN opened their CFP show listing the criteria for selection and emphasizing the point that missing players/coaches can be considered for team exclusion, I knew right away the fix was in for Bama/SEC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 01:13:41 PM
And Florida.
Yes, and Florida.  Florida sucks.  Hard.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 01:13:54 PM
Soon as ESPN opened their CFP show listing the criteria for selection and emphasizing the point that missing players/coaches can be considered for team exclusion, I knew right away the fix was in for Bama/SEC.
The fix.   Great description 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Soon as ESPN opened their CFP show listing the criteria for selection and emphasizing the point that missing players/coaches can be considered for team exclusion, I knew right away the fix was in for Bama/SEC.
Let me get this straight:
the committee abides by it's own guidelines.....and that means the fix was in.  
What the what?!?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 01:26:49 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/B0uvTJY.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on December 03, 2023, 01:28:25 PM
The fix wasn’t in. We have to get over this notion that our opinions are so spot on that the only explanation for someone disagreeing with us is because of some nefarious reason.

It was a tough call. I would have put FSU but I get the rationale for Bama.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2023, 01:28:49 PM
Let me get this straight:
the committee abides by it's own guidelines.....and that means the fix was in. 
What the what?!?
*whispers* they could have started with any of their guidelines to justify any of the exclusions. Cherrypicking this one just signals to everyone what they were going to do
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on December 03, 2023, 01:29:37 PM
Lol. Sorry for the clapping gif. That was meant for Iowa’s defense last night.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 01:34:13 PM
*whispers* they could have started with any of their guidelines to justify any of the exclusions. Cherrypicking this one just signals to everyone what they were going to do
You're in O.J. land, man.  A lot of you are.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 01:34:45 PM
The fix wasn’t in. We have to get over this notion that our opinions are so spot on that the only explanation for someone disagreeing with us is because of some nefarious reason.

It was a tough call. I would have put FSU but I get the rationale for Bama.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
For presidential elections and college football playoff spots.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 01:38:04 PM
Back to the AP poll real quick......this AP poll is the first time Michigan is ranked #1 since 1997. 
That astounds me.


not me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on December 03, 2023, 01:44:15 PM
You're in O.J. land, man.  A lot of you are.
I'm sorry these basic concepts are difficult for you to follow.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 02:32:43 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/mike-norvell-issues-scathing-statement-after-being-left-out-of-college-football-playoff/ar-AA1kVOq5


Nailed it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 03, 2023, 04:23:11 PM
The fix wasn’t in. 
The FIX is ALWAYS in, every time, no matter what.  Any time a thing happens I don't like, it's because of the Fix, and Catch 22.

Even paranoids have enemies.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on December 03, 2023, 05:34:42 PM
Hopefully the first Tom Brady-Patriots Super Bowl, the Giants with Hostetler, the Eagles with Foles, all get wiped off the board.  You don't deserve a chance to keep winning with a backup QB.

You can OOC schedule like trash, by your own choice, but if your QB gets hurt, sorry, unforgiveable.

I hope they just go to a 64 team playoff.  At least admit it's just a TV product at that point
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 03, 2023, 08:05:56 PM
Now list the 742 times the backup stunk it up for 3 games.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 08:14:01 PM
Bamma is the better team than FSU - obviously
didn't think the committee had the balls to do it.
this backlash is why
Screw FSU and the ACC - yup, bad luck that the QB goes down - injuries are a part of the game
I'd rather see Bama vs Michigan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 03, 2023, 08:18:12 PM
Hopefully the first Tom Brady-Patriots Super Bowl, the Giants with Hostetler, the Eagles with Foles, all get wiped off the board.  You don't deserve a chance to keep winning with a backup QB.

You can OOC schedule like trash, by your own choice, but if your QB gets hurt, sorry, unforgiveable.

I hope they just go to a 64 team playoff.  At least admit it's just a TV product at that point
its not that they have to use their 2nd string qb
its because under him the team completely stinks
they have no passing game and the qb just stands there like a deer in the headlights
until most of the time he is sacked

the team going against them plays 8 in the box cause there is no real passing threat and therefore no rushing game either

I watched this for 4 quarters yesterday as did the committee

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 03, 2023, 08:25:40 PM
For FSU Brock was 8 for 21 for 55 yards

FSU rushed for 164 yards with 44 attempts

FSU punted 9 times

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 08:30:04 PM
its not that they have to use their 2nd string qb
its because under him the team completely stinks
they have no passing game and the qb just stands there like a deer in the headlights
until most of the time he is sacked

the team going against them plays 8 in the box cause there is no real passing threat and therefore no rushing game either

I watched this for 4 quarters yesterday as did the committee


No, you actually watched their true freshman third string quarterback, who had zero experience.  And they had more offensive yards than Michigan did yesterday.

and their bowl game they will have their second stream quarterback, who actually is pretty decent and he will have a 30 day period of getting first team reps.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 08:34:12 PM
Bamma is the better team than FSU - obviously
didn't think the committee had the balls to do it.
this backlash is why
Screw FSU and the ACC - yup, bad luck that the QB goes down - injuries are a part of the game
I'd rather see Bama vs Michigan
Yeah.  on Friday Georgia was obviously a better team in Alabama. And Oregon was obviously a better team in Washington.  

opinions.    Wrong as often as they are right.  Was TCU better than Bama last year when Bama had 2 very close losses?   Everyone thought so, but they actually went by real results.   Until this year.   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 08:34:25 PM
I'd guess Bama would be favored over FSU with the Noles first string QB
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 08:35:55 PM
I'd guess Bama would be favored over FSU with the Noles first string QB
Probably.   They were heavily favored over Auburn too.   And Georgia was favored over Alabama.  
  
meaning let’s let the games be played instead of thinking we can just pick and choose based on a beauty pageant
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 08:37:37 PM
Yeah.  on Friday Georgia was obviously a better team in Alabama. And Oregon was obviously a better team in Washington. 

opinions.    Wrong as often as they are right.  Was TCU better than Bama last year when Bama had 2 very close losses?  Everyone thought so, but they actually went by real results.  Until this year. 
when the alternative was to leave the SEC out of the playoff
the SEC and ESPN won't allow this to happen - period
Bama was going to be in - at the expense of Texas or FSU
easier for the committee to use that little clause about injured players than explain the head to head with the Horns
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on December 03, 2023, 08:39:39 PM
when the alternative was to leave the SEC out of the playoff
the SEC and ESPN won't allow this to happen - period
Bama was going to be in - at the expense of Texas or FSU
easier for the committee to use that little clause about injured players than explain the head to head with the Horns
Agreed.   Doesn’t mean we have to like it.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 08:40:17 PM
Probably.  They were heavily favored over Auburn too.  And Georgia was favored over Alabama. 
 
meaning let’s let the games be played instead of thinking we can just pick and choose based on a beauty pageant
agreed, but they were choosing what games will be played.  not simply waiting for the result of said game
They did allow the games to be played last night instead of just thinking
Bama's game was much more impressive than FSU's game
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 08:42:07 PM
Agreed.  Doesn’t mean we have to like it. 
yup, I'd rather see Bama fans and the SEC melt down for being left out
would have been MUCH more entertaining than some clamoring by FSU
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on December 03, 2023, 09:05:54 PM
Imaginarium games being played.

But someone needed a participation trophy, so it is. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 03, 2023, 09:09:37 PM
well, someone owns and controls the game, so if they want a trophy, they give themselves a trophy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 04, 2023, 07:23:24 AM
UGA is a 13.5 point favorite over FSU.  FSU at this point is not good.  And sure, maybe they pull the upset, upsets happen, but play that game 100 times UGA wins 80.

I think Tenn would be favored over FSU right now.

And for me, it matters, I don't care to see a weakened team get blown out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 06, 2023, 10:25:07 AM
Thrilled to announce that @ATLAirport has been crowned the Best Airport in North America by @businesstravelerusa for the second year in a row! This prestigious award acknowledges our unwavering dedication to improving infrastructure and providing an exceptional passenger experience at the world's busiest and most efficient airport.

Even as ATL continues to receive recognition for its world-class service, the City of Atlanta is constantly working to improve operations and passenger experience. From opening a new state-of-the-art fire station to adding parking decks to modernizing our Concourses, we are dedicated to ensuring this economic engine for the Southeast region of the country stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Hartsfield-Jackson named ‘North America’s Best Airport’ for 2nd year in a row (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/hartsfield-jackson-named-north-americas-best-airport-for-2nd-year-in-a-row)

I find it a lot easier to think about "worst airports".  Most, to me, are about the same.  LAX used to be bad, maybe it's better now.  Toronto is awful, been through it four times now, really awful.

The rest seem OK to me.  The smaller ones are more accomodating I think, like say Savannah.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 06, 2023, 10:52:42 AM
UGA is a 13.5 point favorite over FSU.  FSU at this point is not good.  And sure, maybe they pull the upset, upsets happen, but play that game 100 times UGA wins 80.

I think Tenn would be favored over FSU right now.

And for me, it matters, I don't care to see a weakened team get blown out.

It won't mean much either way.  FSU will be lacking far more than Jordan Travis.  They have a number of draft-eligible guys who will go high....I doubt they play.  UGA may have some as well.  These teams are likely to be shells of themselves.

One of the "great" things about the playoffs.....it has guaranteed that most pro-potential players either out of eligibility or who have reached draft eligibility aren't gonna play.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 06, 2023, 11:01:35 AM
Yeah, I don't know of any sit outs yet.  Bowers is a candidate of course as he's been playing hurt.  But he's a horse anyway.

I thought the QB might sit if he goes to the League.  But QB2 is headed to Kentucky.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 06, 2023, 11:10:55 AM
Thrilled to announce that @ATLAirport has been crowned the Best Airport in North America by @businesstravelerusa for the second year in a row! This prestigious award acknowledges our unwavering dedication to improving infrastructure and providing an exceptional passenger experience at the world's busiest and most efficient airport.

Even as ATL continues to receive recognition for its world-class service, the City of Atlanta is constantly working to improve operations and passenger experience. From opening a new state-of-the-art fire station to adding parking decks to modernizing our Concourses, we are dedicated to ensuring this economic engine for the Southeast region of the country stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Hartsfield-Jackson named ‘North America’s Best Airport’ for 2nd year in a row (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/hartsfield-jackson-named-north-americas-best-airport-for-2nd-year-in-a-row)

I find it a lot easier to think about "worst airports".  Most, to me, are about the same.  LAX used to be bad, maybe it's better now.  Toronto is awful, been through it four times now, really awful.

The rest seem OK to me.  The smaller ones are more accomodating I think, like say Savannah.
It still is, but once the construction is done it should be much better. Right now it just sucks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 06, 2023, 11:17:06 AM
LAX has been the worst I've seen in the US, Laguardia gets dishonorable mention.  I find most US airports to be "OK", get the job done, move along.

We use ATL a lot of course and basically it's crowded.  When it's not slammed it works pretty well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 06, 2023, 11:25:23 AM
I know I'm probably in the minority, but ORD is fantastic for domestic flights. The transport is the best I've used.

It will be even better when they build Terminal 4 for International and convert Terminal 5 (current international) into the SW/Frontier/JetBlue/Spirit/Etc. terminal.

Terminal 5 sucks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 06, 2023, 11:32:07 AM
LAX is pretty terrible. I try to avoid it if I possibly can. I'd rather pay more to fly out of John Wayne. And if I can't get that, I'd rather drive to San Diego than LAX if I can find a good flight... SAN being maybe 15-20 extra minutes from here relative to LAX... 

At least the last LAX flight and the next one we have planned were both on Southwest, which is Terminal 1, so it's the first shuttle dropoff from the parking company we use. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 06, 2023, 11:35:24 AM
Delta had us slated to fly from Kona to LAX to Salt Lake and then to san Diego.

They claimed not to have any LAX - SAN flights that day (Christmas day).  My wife changed to to Kona to Maui to LAX to San Diego, I don't know why that was so hard.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 06, 2023, 11:36:39 AM
brutal
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 06, 2023, 11:40:42 AM
Yeah, the next one is LAX->Kauai because I was actually able to get a direct flight. 

But now that I think of it, that's actually on American, not Southwest, so we need to go all the way around to Terminal 4. 

Better add another 30 minutes of buffer into the schedule.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 06, 2023, 11:52:26 AM
LAX is pretty terrible. I try to avoid it if I possibly can. I'd rather pay more to fly out of John Wayne. A
I'm certain I've mentioned before that John Wayne is my favorite airport in the world.  I'll definitely choose it over LAX any time I can.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2023, 12:46:53 PM
Atlanta ranked 4th most fun city by WalletHub (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-ranked-4th-most-fun-city-by-wallethub?fbclid=IwAR0i_i-OOpjPtOwA1h8IEHj6uNkBh6HyckPWWLovoA_EJ6jPXWHOHc2AjL4)

Most Fun Cities in America in 2023 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/most-fun-cities-in-the-us/23455)

I clicked for you don't have to.

1Las Vegas, NV71.381178
2Orlando, FL62.423366
3Miami, FL55.9172165
4Atlanta, GA55.7396104
5San Francisco, CA53.3565176
6New Orleans, LA52.49184129
7Austin, TX51.6020787
8Chicago, IL50.57812144
9Honolulu, HI49.98222162
10New York, NY49.35510182
11Cincinnati, OH49.22142035
12Denver, CO48.991613125
13Portland, OR48.86178158
14St. Louis, MO48.78231716
15Washington, DC48.67119175
16San Diego, CA48.33421168
17Tampa, FL47.83103096
18Fort Lauderdale, FL47.401515150
19Houston, TX47.28291472
20Los Angeles, CA47.011216164


21Philadelphia, PA45.35251810922Seattle, WA44.90131118123Salt Lake City, UT44.25212611024Pittsburgh, PA44.2419367425San Antonio, TX44.1230236826Richmond, VA43.3533278627Tucson, AZ43.2924482928Reno, NV42.8051253029Charleston, SC42.3122568530Phoenix, AZ41.9735357931Dallas, TX41.60422410232Knoxville, TN41.0341601033Scottsdale, AZ41.0036447134Sacramento, CA40.88342914035Minneapolis, MN40.19274312436Nashville, TN40.18383113037Jacksonville, FL40.1537653138St. Petersburg, FL40.1332508939Birmingham, AL40.0473326140Milwaukee, WI39.7746389541Indianapolis, IN39.6465374242Louisville, KY39.61286210643Fort Worth, TX39.4881283244Boston, MA39.34261918045Omaha, NE39.2245642446Chattanooga, TN39.1961475647Oklahoma City, OK38.768354148Cleveland, OH38.7357455349Kansas City, MO38.6771394850Raleigh, NC38.6469339051Charlotte, NC38.6152409152Tulsa, OK38.546871553Buffalo, NY37.9954469254Baton Rouge, LA37.9463526255Columbus, OH37.9243676056Albuquerque, NM37.8031975557Rochester, NY37.48475811558Portland, ME37.21394215359El Paso, TX37.1559911360Madison, WI37.1444796461Columbia, SC36.9858727762Tempe, AZ36.7249778063Colorado Springs, CO36.3850865864Memphis, TN36.0099492865Henderson, NV35.84745110066Grand Rapids, MI35.7880684767Mobile, AL35.59101576368Virginia Beach, VA35.17401108369Wichita, KS35.1310875870Boise, ID35.0960877371Plano, TX35.0266848872Baltimore, MD35.00536114173Springfield, MO34.8511485974Lincoln, NE34.8477737675Arlington, TX34.72102535976Oakland, CA34.32753416677Huntsville, AL34.29128694078Providence, RI34.27784114679Rapid City, SD34.1690961980Durham, NC34.09110663481Detroit, MI33.91855511282Tallahassee, FL33.60941013883Missoula, MT33.5784827584Long Beach, CA33.17645916785Norfolk, VA33.156210611686Gulfport, MS32.87140635487Akron, OH32.61126923388St. Paul, MN32.42561199989Garden Grove, CA32.23987812190Greensboro, NC32.17891022591Anaheim, CA32.04827412892Corpus Christi, TX32.04881212393Glendale, AZ32.011061221194Fort Smith, AR31.84160982095Overland Park, KS31.821341331496Bakersfield, CA31.78119904197Toledo, OH31.68103143698Billings, MT31.62116896999Sioux Falls, SD31.521529426100Cape Coral, FL31.497215581101Chandler, AZ31.209213736102Huntington Beach, CA31.147970161103Montgomery, AL31.061681443104Fargo, ND31.041381464105Mesa, AZ31.019113837106Anchorage, AK30.9748166147107Lubbock, TX30.9011213422108Lexington-Fayette, KY30.908711445109Irvine, CA30.7955117163110Des Moines, IA30.6412411321111Huntington, WV30.5814413646112San Jose, CA30.526776169113Winston-Salem, NC30.3597103111114Fayetteville, NC30.3513911627115Chesapeake, VA30.2995140113116Shreveport, LA30.281539952117Spokane, WA30.1976139107118Amarillo, TX29.981461692119Tacoma, WA29.8612081133120Modesto, CA29.8513710094121Salem, OR29.661498397122Cedar Rapids, IA29.5016111149123Jackson, MS29.4517012743124Wilmington, DE29.1713280145125Fort Wayne, IN29.0511815018126Augusta, GA28.9916614512127Little Rock, AR28.9514713550128Newport News, VA28.9215710984129Fresno, CA28.7810914251130Aurora, CO28.5512911893131Jersey City, NJ28.55104108136132Newark, NJ28.51107120131133Columbus, GA28.4416216317134Worcester, MA28.42151107108135Hialeah, FL28.33111104149136Irving, TX28.3114215839137Charleston, WV28.2716916257138New Haven, CT28.14158126101139Riverside, CA27.98100129118140North Las Vegas, NV27.9812510598141Glendale, CA27.9286130152142Pembroke Pines, FL27.8493156135143Casper, WY27.7513517470144San Bernardino, CA27.7417388105145Gilbert, AZ27.7213114865146Las Cruces, NM27.6313617044147Santa Ana, CA27.4512193137148Vancouver, WA27.2596154127149Port St. Lucie, FL27.2113316767150Juneau, AK26.7770165171151Burlington, VT26.72113115159152Columbia, MD26.70127124155153Santa Clarita, CA26.39122132148154Stockton, CA26.32115160119155Peoria, AZ26.24155128134156Garland, TX26.19143151103157Bismarck, ND26.0915917682158Oceanside, CA26.08105152138159Laredo, TX25.421541817160Moreno Valley, CA24.82179123123161Ontario, CA24.34164147122162Aurora, IL24.21165168126163Rancho Cucamonga, CA24.09156159132164Chula Vista, CA23.90148131154165Fontana, CA23.77180164143166Grand Prairie, TX23.77163173114167Lewiston, ME23.70175177120168Warwick, RI23.61130112172169Manchester, NH23.6014995177170West Valley City, UT23.53172161139171Brownsville, TX23.0118218215172Nampa, ID22.98176149156173Bridgeport, CT22.75177157151174Cheyenne, WY22.73181175117175Fremont, CA22.58123172157176Dover, DE22.42178180142177Santa Rosa, CA21.80117141179178Yonkers, NY21.41145153173179Nashua, NH20.76174125178180Oxnard, CA20.20167171160181South Burlington, VT20.11141179170182Pearl City, HI18.51171178174
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 12, 2023, 01:06:24 PM
Atlanta ranked 4th most fun city by WalletHub (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-ranked-4th-most-fun-city-by-wallethub?fbclid=IwAR0i_i-OOpjPtOwA1h8IEHj6uNkBh6HyckPWWLovoA_EJ6jPXWHOHc2AjL4)

Most Fun Cities in America in 2023 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/most-fun-cities-in-the-us/23455)

I clicked for you don't have to.

1Las Vegas, NV71.381178
2Orlando, FL62.423366
3Miami, FL55.9172165
4Atlanta, GA55.7396104
5San Francisco, CA53.3565176
6New Orleans, LA52.49184129
7Austin, TX51.6020787
8Chicago, IL50.57812144
9Honolulu, HI49.98222162
10New York, NY49.35510182
11Cincinnati, OH49.22142035
12Denver, CO48.991613125
13Portland, OR48.86178158
14St. Louis, MO48.78231716
15Washington, DC48.67119175
16San Diego, CA48.33421168
17Tampa, FL47.83103096
18Fort Lauderdale, FL47.401515150
19Houston, TX47.28291472
20Los Angeles, CA47.011216164
I agree with only a few of those. Some are no longer fun but used to be.

Why the hell is Nashville not on this stupid list?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 12, 2023, 01:40:59 PM
Sure, NOLA is fun, if you enjoy being robbed or randomly stabbed at an ATM and air so muggy it's faster to swim than walk through it. 

Houston is fun if you like ugly buildings.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2023, 06:49:14 AM
Every such list is about criteria to an extent, whether the preparer is really serious and made any effort, or just wants clicks.  It's plausible this, and other such lists, were prepared in some room in a meeting with "five" people who thought about each one about ten seconds.  It's very akin to "best places to retire" etc.

I'd guess our collective here could compile such a list, top 20, and it would reflect our idea of "fun", and it'd probably be an OK list.  But would it be of any real value?

Nope.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 13, 2023, 06:56:16 AM
Portland is fun!!

(https://i.imgur.com/svfSUhd.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 13, 2023, 06:59:51 AM
Every such list is about criteria to an extent, whether the preparer is really serious and made any effort, or just wants clicks.  It's plausible this, and other such lists, were prepared in some room in a meeting with "five" people who thought about each one about ten seconds.  It's very akin to "best places to retire" etc.

I'd guess our collective here could compile such a list, top 20, and it would reflect our idea of "fun", and it'd probably be an OK list.  But would it be of any real value?

Nope.
It would be better than the list above, without a doubt.

Another couple lists of interest that I could come up with:

1. Fun cities, 2019
2. Fun cities, 2023

Hint: 2019 would be a longer list than 2023.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2023, 07:08:46 AM
Presuming we had an accurate list, how would anyone use it?  Maybe you'd see City X at 3 and had never visited and so you made special plans to go because of this list?

I wouldn't, personally.  

A better list might be something like "European cities you haven't considered visiting that are worth a side trip".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 13, 2023, 07:25:50 AM
There are probably a million cities in Europe worth a side trip.

Hell, there's a whole lot in Florida.

Tampa? Seriously? It's not bad, but it's not St. Pete Beach or Clearwater Beach.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2023, 07:51:37 AM
Yup, there are, but a lot of tourists won't consider them.  The want to check boxes, which is about all you can do with a one week trip.

I'm sure there are some none of us here know about that are worth considering.  Oddly enough, I've dragged my wife to places she's never been in France that were pretty neat.  She had some "old tapes" on places like Marseille for example.  She used to vacation in just two places, near the Alps for skiing and Brittany.  So she has missed seeing a lot of her own country.  She used to pass through Lyon but never stayed over night.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2023, 07:57:57 AM
I've missed lots of places in my own country. 

Might try to resolve some of that 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2023, 12:20:28 PM
2023 Orange Bowl Betting Odds, Predictions, Preview | Best Bets (vegasinsider.com) (https://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/bowls/orange/)

The Bulldogs, who won the last two national titles, saw their 29-game SU winning streak end in the SEC championship game. Georgia (12-1 SU/5-8 ATS) trailed Alabama most of the way and lost 27-24 as a 5.5-point favorite.
Basically, oddsmakers are saying Florida State would be a sizable 'dog to any of the four CFP teams – and then some.
"Ohio State, Georgia, Oregon and Penn State would all be favorites over Florida State," SuperBook executive director John Murray said. "In fact, Georgia would be favored vs. all four CFP teams."
At TwinSpires, the Bulldogs opened -14.5 against the Seminoles. Georgia inched down to -14 early, with 54% of bets/62% of dollars on Florida State.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 15, 2023, 12:50:31 PM
So even by the committee's own "standard" they didn't put the 4 best teams in. 

Really blows their logic away for leaving FSU out.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2023, 12:57:24 PM
I've noted before, if FSU would be a two TD dog to any of the CFP teams, I don't think they should be in the mix.  If it was one TD, I'd say OK.

The four "best teams" might well be UK, OSU, UGA, and Texas, by which I mean the teams that would have the best chance of winning each game.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on December 15, 2023, 12:58:12 PM
The four "best teams" might well be UK, OSU, UGA, and Texas, by which I mean the teams that would have the best chance of winning each game.
Bold take on Kentucky
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2023, 01:04:12 PM
I meant the other Kentucky.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 17, 2023, 12:10:25 PM
States With the Highest Property Taxes

Florida - not on the list of top 15

2. Illinois
Average effective property tax: 2.05%


6. Texas
Average effective property tax: 1.66%

7. Wisconsin
Average effective property tax: 1.63%

8. Nebraska
Average effective property tax: 1.61%

10. Iowa
Average effective property tax: 1.50%

15. Kansas
Average effective property tax: 1.32%
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 01:08:28 PM
States With the Highest Property Taxes

Florida - not on the list of top 15

2. Illinois
Average effective property tax: 2.05%


6. Texas
Average effective property tax: 1.66%

7. Wisconsin
Average effective property tax: 1.63%

8. Nebraska
Average effective property tax: 1.61%

10. Iowa
Average effective property tax: 1.50%

15. Kansas
Average effective property tax: 1.32%

This is kinda misleading

The avg cost of housing is much less in these states so even though their rates are high the actual dollors spent is less
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 17, 2023, 01:18:00 PM
they cornsidered and listed those numbers

6. Texas
Average effective property tax: 1.66%
2022 average home value: $308,392
Average annual property tax paid: $5,119
With a property tax rate edging up to 1.7%, and an average home value of over $300,000, Texas homeowners are paying over $5,000 in taxes each year.

___________________

I can somewhat manage my tax by purchasing a less expensive house
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 17, 2023, 01:43:01 PM
How did you rank yesterday's (saturday's) bowl sites? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 01:50:18 PM
they cornsidered and listed those numbers

6. Texas
Average effective property tax: 1.66%
2022 average home value: $308,392
Average annual property tax paid: $5,119
With a property tax rate edging up to 1.7%, and an average home value of over $300,000, Texas homeowners are paying over $5,000 in taxes each year.

___________________

I can somewhat manage my tax by purchasing a less expensive house
but as an example in California the average house cost is over $700,000 the avg tax rate is 1% but the dollar payout is $7000
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 01:52:08 PM
Its not the rate thats important its the dollar payout
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 17, 2023, 02:17:25 PM
like I stated, I can't change the rate, but I can choose to buy a cheaper house
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 02:22:44 PM
like I stated, I can't change the rate, but I can choose to buy a cheaper house
or you could live in a state where housing costs less
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 17, 2023, 02:30:42 PM
well, I sure wouldn't be living in the expensive areas of Texas or Nebraska

I live in a small town of 300 folks in Iowa on a dead end street - 1100 sq ft house - not expensive
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 02:32:51 PM
well, I sure wouldn't be living in the expensive areas of Texas or Nebraska

I live in a small town of 300 folks in Iowa on a dead end street - 1100 sq ft house - not expensive
Youre right Texas is as expensive as hell

dont move here if you want to keep your kidneys or your money
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 17, 2023, 02:50:38 PM
House here is worth 25% more than the house I sold in Illinois.

Taxes here are 25% of what I paid in Illinois.

You read that correctly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on December 17, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
House here is worth 25% more than the house I sold in Illinois.

Taxes here are 25% of what I paid in Illinois.

You read that correctly.
The average tax rate for Illinois is 2% and for Florida is 1% so thats possible
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 17, 2023, 05:22:55 PM
Our rate is the same. Boarded flight to Kona. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 17, 2023, 05:27:22 PM
House here is worth 25% more than the house I sold in Illinois.

Taxes here are 25% of what I paid in Illinois.

You read that correctly.
living more than 25% closer to the marina 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 17, 2023, 05:28:30 PM
Our rate is the same. Boarded flight to Kona.
Fair winds and following seas
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 18, 2023, 08:40:46 AM
The average tax rate for Illinois is 2% and for Florida is 1% so thats possible
I know it's possible because I write the checks. ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 18, 2023, 09:31:24 AM
Two long flights. 5 hours then six. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 18, 2023, 09:44:47 AM
fun fun
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 02, 2024, 12:26:05 PM
The report found residents in Hawaii spent the most on their utility bills, on average, at $633 per month. That was followed by Maine ($500/month), New Jersey ($467/month), Connecticut ($463/month) and Vermont ($428/month).+

On the opposite end of the list, Mississippi residents had the least expensive utility bills in the U.S., averaging just $255 per month, followed by South Dakota ($278/month), North Carolina ($282/month), Missouri ($284/month) and Georgia ($286/month), the report shows.

The most expensive city for utility bills, however, may come as a surprise. According to Doxo, Milwaukee’s residents are paying the most each month at $538 — almost $200 more than the national average. After Milwaukee, the five most expensive large cities were New York ($511), Los Angeles ($455), Pittsburgh and San Jose (both at $439).
Minneapolis ($209), Memphis ($216), Austin ($221), Atlanta ($240), and Charlotte ($247) have the least expensive bills of America’s largest cities.


Where are utilities bills the most expensive? (thehill.com) (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/4378994-the-cities-states-with-the-most-expensive-utility-bills-in-the-us-report/)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 02, 2024, 12:32:18 PM
Yeah, for once a cost ranking where CA isn't actually top 5? 

I think it's a combination of smaller homes (due to housing cost) and temperate weather so we don't need to spend as much on heating/cooling, even though our NG/electricity rates are higher than other states. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 02, 2024, 12:51:36 PM
My step kids' house in SD is "tiny".  They have a pretty nice backyard, fenced in, that helps, in that climate.  I'm guessing it's 1,000 sf and cost near a million.

One bathroom with four boys.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 02, 2024, 01:20:14 PM
How can Milwaukee be the most expensive utilities on average when that average is less than the state average of Hawaii?  That should mean at least one city in Hawaii is more than Milwaukee.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 02, 2024, 01:25:30 PM
How can Milwaukee be the most expensive utilities on average when that average is less than the state average of Hawaii?  That should mean at least one city in Hawaii is more than Milwaukee. 
Possible that there is a population cutoff for city size. Milwaukee is over 500K while Honolulu is under 350K. And if it's including the wider metro area Milwaukee is >1.5M while Honolulu is ~1M. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 02, 2024, 01:26:56 PM
I wondered that myself, though perhaps the rest of WI is very cheap.  And of course a lot of the bill is for heat which might be mostly fuel oil in Mil.

Hawaii is expensive for nearly everything, except wine.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 02, 2024, 01:42:49 PM

One bathroom with four boys.
Better than 2 girls 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 02, 2024, 03:22:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/anW1SKF.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 03, 2024, 05:55:46 AM
That seems obscure, but strangely interesting ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2024, 07:16:32 AM
Wisconsin-Plattsburg. 

Interesting.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2024, 07:20:15 AM
These states saw the largest influx of movers in 2023, according to U-Haul: 



California is at the bottom of U-Haul’s list for states that gained population


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 03, 2024, 09:30:34 AM
U-Haul: Trusted source
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 03, 2024, 09:33:41 AM
Yeah, their figures don't line up with population growth numbers very well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2024, 09:45:07 AM
We didn't use U-Haul to move.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 03, 2024, 09:47:21 AM
most folks don't
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 03, 2024, 09:58:06 AM
I used one to move some of my more fragile stuff like wine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 03, 2024, 10:32:34 AM
These states saw the largest influx of movers in 2023, according to U-Haul:

  • Texas

Misleading.  Most of the people who moved here in 2023 illegally crossed the border. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2024, 10:44:35 AM
Misleading.  Most of the people who moved here in 2023 illegally crossed the border. 
Not their fault. They've been encouraged to break the law.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 03, 2024, 01:30:27 PM
Misleading.  Most of the people who moved here in 2023 illegally crossed the border. 
I'd say we need to make it illegal for Californians and yankees to move here, too, but clearly that doesn't work.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 03, 2024, 01:45:26 PM
I used u-haul to move the last 4 times because it was all local and I don't own that much stuff.

I love it, though - talk of $3K game packages and trips to Tuscany, having never moved with u-haul....but scoff when it's suggested you have wealth.
There are multiple "rivers in Egypt" on this board.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 03, 2024, 01:58:11 PM
I used u-haul to move the last 4 times because it was all local and I don't own that much stuff.

I love it, though - talk of $3K game packages and trips to Tuscany, having never moved with u-haul....but scoff when it's suggested you have wealth.
There are multiple "rivers in Egypt" on this board.
And you seem to think that anyone who isn't absolutely uncomfortable every day about money and living paycheck to paycheck is rich. 

There's a wide chasm between "comfortable with a cushion and available to enjoy some luxuries from time to time" and "wealthy". 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 03, 2024, 02:01:51 PM
I rented a Ryder truck to move across Iowa for work once - company paid for it
all my other moves, (haven't been many) I didn't pay U-Haul or Ryder.
found friends and relatives - too cheap
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 03, 2024, 02:03:05 PM
I'd say we need to make it illegal for Californians and yankees to move here, too, but clearly that doesn't work.
because laws aren't enforced
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 03, 2024, 02:26:46 PM
I rented a Ryder truck to move across Iowa for work once - company paid for it
all my other moves, (haven't been many) I didn't pay U-Haul or Ryder.
found friends and relatives - too cheap
I've moved myself a LOT of times. From 2000-2010 I had 10 different addresses across 3 states. I think the only time I had paid movers was the relocation from CA to GA (paid by company), but it's not like that was much b/c it was from a 1bdr apartment into a 4bdr house, so we didn't have much stuff. I had to pay for the move back out of pocket so used PODS which I packed all the stuff, and loaded and unloaded myself (plus with friends). From 2010 on I only had my move in the divorce in 2016 which was easy as my ex ended up taking most of the big furniture, so I did that with a uhaul myself as well.

But I think I'm at a point in my life now that the next move I make I will pay movers to handle it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 03, 2024, 02:35:22 PM
But I think I'm at a point in my life now that the next move I make I will pay movers to handle it.

+1

I've done plenty of moving in my time, but for multiple reasons, chief amongst them I have physical drawbacks now that make any sort of labor range from painful to impossible, I think I'm done doing it myself.  If we can't pay a moving company, then we probably just wouldn't move.  Sometimes job promotions or even hires will pay for a move, or part of it.  That would be nice if it ever came to that.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 03, 2024, 03:08:42 PM
I'd say we need to make it illegal for Californians and yankees to move here, too, but clearly that doesn't work.

And the #!*@ **!% coonasses!!!  Gotta get some state troopers to man the Sabine River!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 04, 2024, 06:52:29 AM
I love it, though - talk of $3K game packages and trips to Tuscany, having never moved with u-haul....but scoff when it's suggested you have wealth.
Who here said this?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 07:09:11 AM
I moved a few times when I was in school, obviously that was the "free pizza" technique.  I moved once after I started working, same deal the first time.

If we define "having wealth" as moving with movers instead of "UHaul", I'm still good, I used a UHaul truck to move here almost six years ago.  I also had movers move the heavy stuff.  Anyway, I do actually "have wealth", you pretty much need some to retire.  As to being "wealthy"?  That would be in the eyes of ...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 04, 2024, 07:25:41 AM
This was the first time we ever used movers.

The "free pizza" thing could have worked up North, but not when we got here. We didn't know anyone.

Plus, driving an unfamiliar truck 1600 miles didn't sound like fun.

We didn't move much anyway. Midwest furniture is not a fit down here. Plus, movers charge by the pound for long-haul moves.

$2.50/pound for a $500 hide-a-bed would be stupid.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 07:33:08 AM
Yup, at "our age", moving yourself is exhausting.  Moving anyway is exhausting.  I hope never to move again until it's feet first.

At some point, I guess "we" will be down to one person, and whoever survives might move to a smaller unit.  I hate to think of that day.

I got three moving estimates, two of which were remarkably cheap, the third guy said "No way they can move for that price, they'll nickel and dime you to the same thing we're offering up front", which actually made sense.  We took the (much) higher offer, and they were pretty liberal about how many boxes they'd move, we had more than the estimate by quite a bit.

And like most folks, we had to sell off or give away a lot of stuff we really didn't need or couldn't find room for here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 04, 2024, 07:46:47 AM
Well that was the other thing. We had a 3500 SF townhome that we sold and rented a 2000 SF condo with a very large basement storage aera in the parking garage. It was 5 blocks away.

This house is 1750 SF - no storage.

Needless to say, we purged a lot of stuff.

We moved from a 3800 SF home to that 3500 SF townhome in 2007.

When we sold the townhome in 2018, we found a lot of boxes from 2007 that we never opened. They remain that way - just in a landfill. I said "If we haven't opened them in 11 years, we don't need them."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 07:53:50 AM
Yeah, I have boxes in my basement when I moved to the wife's house that contained "interesting" stuff and had not been opened since I boxed them, in 1987.  I moved into her house in 2012 as I recall.  It was tiring just to open them and rapidly sift through contents.

We have a small storage area here in the garage which is pretty full of stuff we almost never access.  Golf clubs, paint cans, tools, Christmas tree, ...

I've been reading some "Reacher" novels of late, they are so so in my view, but an "airplane read" kind of thing.  He travels around with just a toothbrush.

I notice the general theme in each of them is the same.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on January 04, 2024, 08:41:42 AM
These states saw the largest influx of movers in 2023, according to U-Haul:

  • Texas
  • Florida
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • Idaho
  • Washington
  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Virginia
  • Nevada
  • Vermont
  • Utah
  • Wyoming
  • Delaware


California is at the bottom of U-Haul’s list for states that gained population



Too cities:


https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/U-Haul-Announces-Top-Us-Growth-Cities-Of-2023-30661/
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 04, 2024, 08:42:40 AM
I'm entertaining the thought of moving 40-60 miles from Iowa to South Dakota to avoid some taxes and be closer to a golf course.

After living in the same 1100sq ft house since 1989 I wonder if it is worth the trouble - probably not
Don't make enough to save a lot on taxes

After cleaning out my Grandmother's house and my Father's house, I've learned not to leave a big chore and mess for my daughters.

I've thrown out a bunch of "stuff" that has been in the 1100ft basement and garage.  Good stuff, like newspapers from the Husker's run in the 90s.

But, there would still be plenty to move and plenty for my daughters sift through some day.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 08:53:09 AM
I had a few boxes with Sports Illustrated's etc. and newspaper articles about the Dawgs and Braves back in the day.  I had never looked at them since.  I had a box of trophies I had "earned" in HS playing ball.  They seemed like really nice keepsakes when I was 18.  They were all tossed.  One box was full of wrapped Christmas glasses I had never used, probably the ex had done that.  I think they were from Arbies, no lie.  I dimly recall eating there often to get more glasses.

The one thing I regret forgetting was my flight bag.  I doubt I'd be doing any flying, but it had some modestly expensive gear in it, headsets and whatnot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 04, 2024, 09:05:59 AM
I've moved myself a LOT of times. From 2000-2010 I had 10 different addresses across 3 states.
:o :cheer: Damn Papa was a rolling stone.I've pulled up stakes but that's like the tribes striking the tents teepees and following the buffalo/elk herds
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 04, 2024, 09:18:54 AM
We didn't move much anyway. Midwest furniture is not a fit down here. Plus, movers charge by the pound for long-haul moves.

Wut?

Does space work differently in Florida than in the midwest?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 04, 2024, 09:27:59 AM
the midwest "style" didn't fit in the deep south
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 09:48:31 AM
I think were I to have a place near the beach, I'd probably prefer having lighter beachier furniture.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 04, 2024, 10:00:28 AM
Wut?

Does space work differently in Florida than in the midwest? 
See CD's response above.

Midwest dark is not a fit here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 10:03:57 AM
I got an apartment in 1976 after spending one year in a dorm in Chapel Hill.  $135 a month, literally across the tracks.  A buddy had an old "bread truck" missing third gear I borrowed to move some stuff from ATL to CH.  I mostly needed a bed.  

That was a decent apartment especially at that rent.  That's where I'd go down and play basketball and be the only honkie playing.  That was fun really once they quit treating me with kit gloves.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 04, 2024, 11:14:44 AM
I had a box of trophies I had "earned" in HS playing ball.  They seemed like really nice keepsakes when I was 18.  They were all tossed.
Yeah, I had a ton of trophies from martial arts tournaments during HS that were just sitting in my parent's house. When I lived in Marietta and they once drove down from Chicago to see me, they brought them all. They didn't make the move back to CA lol. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 04, 2024, 11:20:47 AM
:o :cheer: Damn Papa was a rolling stone.I've pulled up stakes but that's like the tribes striking the tents teepees and following the buffalo/elk herds
Yep. Lot of life changes in that decade. Started in West Lafayette in 2000. Then San Jose. Then after 11 months in SJ my roommate wanted to move to downtown SJ and I moved to a different place in SJ. Then I got laid off and ended up moving to SoCal, but wasn't married, so rented a room in a house for a while until I got married and moved into an apt with my now-ex. Lived there and she bought a dog (we weren't allowed to have one) and when they found out, had to move again to a different apartment. Decided we wanted to leave SoCal and moved to GA. Turned around and moved 2 years later back to CA. I told her if I was moving back to CA I wanted to be near the beach. So we got a small apt near the beach. One kid arrived, then 2nd kid arrived, so we moved to a more spacious condo. Finally the collapse of the real estate market came, and we finally bought a house at the end of 2010.

I'd still be living there now, with a ton of equity, but I couldn't afford to buy her out of her equity in the divorce and we had to sell it. Still wish I'd found a way to afford it... Probably the worst financial move of my adult life. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 04, 2024, 11:40:46 AM
I managed, just, to buy my wife out of her equity in our house at the time.  I wanted the kids to stay in the same house if possible.  That's the only time I borrowed against credit cards, and an insurance policy my dad had bought for me when I was younger.  I was calculating how many days until next payday.  Things were a bit thin for a while.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 04, 2024, 10:12:16 PM
I bought my ex out

daughters stayed in the same house

all worked out pretty well
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2024, 06:22:03 AM
"We" were musing on the other thread about how to rank FSU in any final poll.  I don't really know myself, I'd probably ding them for the bad loss and having missing players, but only down to maybe 10.  Folks are saying the current team doesn't even merit being top 25.  But a one loss P5 team won't drop out no matter what.

What do team rankings mean anyway?  What should they mean?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 05, 2024, 07:10:51 AM
I think were I to have a place near the beach, I'd probably prefer having lighter beachier furniture.
Well beachier couches don't hold up well here during football season. Maybe great with the wine and cheesers not so much for the pretzels and beer crowd :111:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 05, 2024, 07:14:54 AM
I bought my ex out

daughters stayed in the same house

all worked out pretty well
ex out - not a bad idea
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 05, 2024, 07:17:40 AM
 so rented a room in a house for a while until I got married and moved into an apt with my now-ex. 
now-ex, another not a bad idea
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2024, 07:29:49 AM
I don't think the sturdiness of beachier couches is in any way lacking aside from cheap stuff, which isn't sturdy in any style.

My wife likes white furniture items here, and everywhere.  I more or less went in for the mahagony type, Heinkel-Harris stuff.  I really don't much care.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 05, 2024, 08:09:50 AM
We have white furniture here. Pops of color here and there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 05, 2024, 08:36:00 AM
I have a couple black fake leather recliners - they are comfortable enough to nap in

the dog has a dark green real leather couch - he loves it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 05, 2024, 10:30:42 AM
We have a fair bit of gray. Couch and loveseat are a dark gray. Single chair a light-medium gray. 

Can't do white furniture with kids and a dog. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 05, 2024, 10:38:16 AM
We have a fair bit of gray. Couch and loveseat are a dark gray. Single chair a light-medium gray.

Can't do white furniture with kids and a dog.
Reason number 18,973 to not have a dog.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 05, 2024, 10:53:55 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/2p96oy.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2024, 12:21:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fLidEek.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 05, 2024, 12:45:46 PM
For reference, Lincoln Riley knows absolutely nothing about BBQ.  This dried out turd of a mummified scarab shell is the brisket he attempted to turn out for Easter a couple years back. 

(https://i.imgur.com/myRMrpU.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on January 05, 2024, 02:24:27 PM
(https://advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width2048/img/osu_impact/photo/urban-meyer-and-brady-hoke-eating-ribs-de8f7f02af817868.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 05, 2024, 05:06:16 PM
If the bbq is good, mortal enemies can dine together, because no one is talking.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 05, 2024, 05:36:15 PM
If the bbq is good, mortal enemies can dine together, because no one is talking. 
Amen brutha.  Lotsa horns and ags will sit together and stfu whilst devouring good Q.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 06, 2024, 08:06:44 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UrLs5Z1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 06, 2024, 08:38:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/fLidEek.png)
Sounds a bit like Scott Frost
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 06, 2024, 09:45:48 AM
I prefer "coach speak" to blustering like that.  If USC finishes say 8-5, he won't look so prescient.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 18, 2024, 10:51:24 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/8lHs4qW.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 21, 2024, 11:16:18 AM
Is Josh Wine Any Good? We Asked Sommeliers Named “Josh” To Weigh In

Quaffable, affordable, and omnipresent, Josh Cellars wine was already the bestselling table wine in America. Now it’s become the vintage that launched a thousand memes. What do wine experts who happen to be Joshes have to say about it?

https://www.gq.com/story/is-josh-wine-any-good-we-asked-sommeliers-named-josh-to-weigh-in (https://www.gq.com/story/is-josh-wine-any-good-we-asked-sommeliers-named-josh-to-weigh-in)

Jokes aside, the Joshes — who don’t know one another — seem genuinely awed by Josh Wine’s marketing and reach. It’s available in grocery stores, in restaurants, and even in gas stations, and is apparently the #1 selling table wine in the U.S. The fact that “it’s in your face, everywhere,” as Neimeyer says, likely plays into its popularity: The company behind the brand, Josh Cellars, recently notched sales of five million cases over a single year period. It’s an impressive feat, considering that overall wine consumption in the U.S. continues to tank.

True to their word, neither sommelier will turn down a glass of Josh every now and then. Both admit they have bottles of Josh at home, mostly received from friends or colleagues, usually as a gag. “Who am I to stick my nose up or pooh-pooh anything just for what it is? I don’t veer towards the pretentious side of things,” Orr says. “I’ll drink any wine, from Josh Cabernet to Château Pétrus. The only thing I’m slightly pretentious about is that I really like glassware. So as long as you serve me the Josh Cab in a nice wine glass, I’m good to go.”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 21, 2024, 11:26:16 AM
The world’s biggest truck stop has been open 24/7 for the past sixty years

This year, the Iowa 80 truck stop located in Walcott, Iowa, is marking the company’s 60 year anniversary of operations.

The Iowa 80 is proud to have never shut their doors since the first day that they opened in 1964. “There are no keys to the doors, as none have ever been needed,” the company said.


https://cdllife.com/2024/the-worlds-biggest-truck-stop-has-been-open-24-7-for-the-past-sixty-years/ (https://cdllife.com/2024/the-worlds-biggest-truck-stop-has-been-open-24-7-for-the-past-sixty-years/)

The Iowa 80 Truckstop includes a gift store, the Super Truck Showroom, a dentist, a barber shop, a chiropractor, a workout room, laundry facilities, a 60-seat movie theatre, a trucker’s TV lounge, 24 private showers, many restaurant options including the Iowa 80 Kitchen, Wendy’s, Dairy Queen, Orange Julius, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Einstein Bagels and Caribou Coffee, Blimpie and Chester’s Chicken; a convenience store, a custom embroidery and vinyl shop, 42 BP branded gas and diesel fueling positions at the main building, 34 high-speed diesel pumps for truckers at the fuel center, a 7-bay truck service center, a 3-bay Truckomat truck wash, a CAT Scale, a Dogomat Pet Wash, and the Iowa 80 Trucking Museum.

Today, Iowa 80 offers 900 truck parking spaces and serves about 5000 customers per day. The truck stop employs about 500 workers.
__________________________

Buc-ee's can suck it!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 22, 2024, 01:28:44 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/MpHw8sM.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 22, 2024, 01:33:44 PM
Bucee's has a lot of gas pumps and a lot of room to get around them, plus very clean bathrooms, which makes them an ideal stop whilst towing my RV trailer.

Other than that, I don't think I've ever been too Bucee's.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 22, 2024, 02:20:29 PM
I have no desire to visit a large truck stop or a Buccees 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 22, 2024, 03:25:54 PM
I have no desire to visit a large truck stop or a Buccees
Well sure, you're not towing a 32' RV, either!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 22, 2024, 03:28:59 PM
now, show me a Czech Stop or a Slovacek's and I'm hitting the brakes!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 22, 2024, 03:33:32 PM
now, show me a Czech Stop or a Slovacek's and I'm hitting the brakes!!!
Heck yeah!  I stop at Czech Stop, with my RV, every time I take it up to the DFW area (which is every year for TX-OU plus other various trips).

I love Slovacek's too but it's not as convenient when towing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 22, 2024, 03:37:54 PM
I stop at the one on the West side of the road going south and the east side of the road when going north

not playin favorites

both are very very good
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 22, 2024, 03:59:08 PM
Gerik's Ole Czech Bakery and the Oak Street Bakery are both just a couple blocks east of Czech Stop and are arguably better than both Czech Stop and Slovacek's, but that's just enough off the beaten path to make them inconvenient (especially when towing) and as I recall, their hours aren't as convenient, either.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 22, 2024, 04:01:40 PM
might try them next time, but as you say, might not be open or as convenient in and out and the other two are plenty good enuff for me when traveling
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 24, 2024, 05:20:22 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/r8FdkNw.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 24, 2024, 07:14:12 AM
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/best-airlines-us-2023-36e9ea20?st=wjmh8yvns835dxq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Airline Rankings per WSJ.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 24, 2024, 08:20:15 AM
I just buy the least expensive tickets
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 24, 2024, 09:12:45 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/r8FdkNw.png)

I'm surprised Texas A&M isn't in that top tier.  They're not as big as UT, but Texas is a huge state and the Aggies still have millions of fans.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 24, 2024, 09:34:50 AM
Yep, and Alabama is a "little" state with 2 schools listed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 24, 2024, 09:57:48 AM
Yeah we all know why Alabama's up there at the top, but I'm definitely surprised to see Auburn but not A&M.  Aside from any local fan bases, it seems like both should have picked up a similar sort of "halo effect" from playing in the SEC West through those years.

From those 18, the New SEC has 8 teams, the New B1G has 7, and then the ACC has Clemson and FSU, with ND being independent(ish).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 24, 2024, 10:13:16 AM
The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 24, 2024, 12:34:51 PM
I was surprised to see Wisconsin, to be honest. It's a "smallish" state that is truly dominated by the Wackers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 24, 2024, 01:37:26 PM
I was surprised to see Wisconsin, to be honest. It's a "smallish" state that is truly dominated by the Wackers.
I guess everybody loves whiskey. :)


The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile. 

Seems like nobody has been able to mount an attack on the GOR.  FSU keeps on making noises about it, and has been for 2 years now, but I have to think that if they really had a case, they'd be challenging the GOR right now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 24, 2024, 02:29:20 PM
$ is the water of legal structures.....you may have built a fortress, but give $ enough time, it will erode everything and win.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 24, 2024, 02:34:49 PM
$ is the water of legal structures.....you may have built a fortress, but give $ enough time, it will erode everything and win. 
True enough, I just don't think this one is going to erode nearly as quickly as a lot of folks assumed it would.

Their fundamental problem is that ESPN has their rights either way, so has no incentive to help spring them.  Only the B1G's TV partners would have any incentive, and it's apparent that for the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 24, 2024, 03:01:08 PM
True enough, I just don't think this one is going to erode nearly as quickly as a lot of folks assumed it would.

Their fundamental problem is that ESPN has their rights either way, so has no incentive to help spring them.  Only the B1G's TV partners would have any incentive, and it's apparent that for the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.
If FSU, Miami, UNC and UVA were able to somehow get out to the B1G, would ESecPN even want ACC rights anymore?

And then Clemson, NC State, and VT to the SEC (along with a XII school probably (oSu?)).

I don't know how many votes would be required to blow up the ACC.

I'm sure Stanford, Cal, Wake, Dook, Cuse, BC, Pitt, GT and Louisville would not be up for voting to implode.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 24, 2024, 05:24:08 PM
If FSU, Miami, UNC and UVA were able to somehow get out to the B1G, would ESecPN even want ACC rights anymore?

And then Clemson, NC State, and VT to the SEC (along with a XII school probably (oSu?)).

I don't know how many votes would be required to blow up the ACC.

I'm sure Stanford, Cal, Wake, Dook, Cuse, BC, Pitt, GT and Louisville would not be up for voting to implode.
Adding Stanford, Berkeley, and SMU just made it harder to disband the conference, if that were even a possibility.  I don't think anyone's getting out until the GOR assumed damages get small enough to pay your way out.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 24, 2024, 05:25:01 PM
Top BBQ restaurants in each state, a ranking, sort-of.

https://travelerdoor.com/2023/10/12/bestbbq/?utm_campaign=TD-us-d-bestbbq-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G265-desktop-feedspla-BC-vv20-s-271223&utm_content=120203870853760734&utm_source=FB&utm_medium=120203870870450734&cq_src=facebook&cq_cmp=TD-us-d-bestbbq-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G265-desktop-feedspla-BC-vv20-s-271223&cq_con=120203870870450734&cq_med=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&cq_net=fb&fbclid=IwAR18urK5TNK2lSabd7DrR8FCjHJeZpQ1sjE90ZKjC3afgz9ezkXw5tCFHoo
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on January 24, 2024, 09:06:42 PM
I can vouch for the Ohio one. It was one of my faves. 

I'll have to try the Vegas one. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 24, 2024, 10:11:45 PM
AZ one is dead-on, and they're opening another location downtown.  The brisket and jalapeno grits are to die for.  I was brave one visit, as I don't like unspicy things to be made spicy, esp jalapeno-flavored, but they're delicious! 

You get 2 meats and 2 sides, so I get brisket x2 and those grits x2

(https://i.imgur.com/I9Lga04.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 12:36:54 AM
Louis Mueller for Texas, is a solid choice.  There are others I like more, but I can't dispute going with one of the OGs that's still going strong through three generations of family pitmasters.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 25, 2024, 07:42:12 AM
Smokey Ds in Des Moines is legit
the place in Lincoln NE I'd never heard of and is now an Ethiopian Restaurant
the place in South Dakota is way out west.  North of Rapid.
I'm in South Dakota this morning and still 5 and a half hours away
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 25, 2024, 08:54:26 AM
Adding Stanford, Berkeley, and SMU just made it harder to disband the conference, if that were even a possibility.  I don't think anyone's getting out until the GOR assumed damages get small enough to pay your way out.
I forgot about SMU.

FSU, UNC and Miami all voted against the Cal twins and SMU joining.

The ACC is a conference, reluctantly.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 25, 2024, 09:13:49 AM
That article got Illinois wrong.

Home - Chicago Culinary Kitchen (https://chicagoculinarykitchen.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 09:29:57 AM
I forgot about SMU.

FSU, UNC and Miami all voted against the Cal twins and SMU joining.

The ACC is a conference, reluctantly.
Unfortunately for them, those are the bylaws they agreed to when they signed the contracts.  Not gonna be very compelling in court to say "Yeah but I only signed up for the good stuff, not the stuff I don't wanna."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 25, 2024, 10:19:22 AM
times have changed

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 25, 2024, 10:21:54 AM
The place in CA is about 6 hours from anywhere. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 10:40:36 AM
times have changed


Time were changing in 2011.  And 2010.  And 1996.  And 1992.  And 1991.

They probably should have thought about all of that, before signing an EXTREMELY long term deal in the midst of so much turmoil.

And that's exactly what they'll be told in court, should they choose to push it.  Which they haven't.  Which tells me they won't.  Because they know they can't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 25, 2024, 10:43:38 AM
True enough, I just don't think this one is going to erode nearly as quickly as a lot of folks assumed it would.

Their fundamental problem is that ESPN has their rights either way, so has no incentive to help spring them.  Only the B1G's TV partners would have any incentive, and it's apparent that for the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

I think ESPN may have some incentive.  Assuming FSU and maybe one or two others turn on TVs at a higher rate--and I'm guessing they do--then those teams add exponential value to the SEC, and ESPN could have that value for less than the sum of its parts.  Meanwhile, they could drop the ACC entirely, because why would they care about an FSU-less, Clemson-less, Va. Techless (or whoever) ACC? 

Similar to Texas and OU joining the SEC.  UT/OU carry their own set of eyeballs with them, but moving to the SEC (or Big Ten) is not like moving anywhere else.  If those teams moved to the PAC 2 (or, just to be fair about this, let's say the PAC didn't implode and it was still the PAC 12), that's still mostly the extent of it....they carry that many eyeballs.  But the SEC/B1G have giant bases already built in, and now that many eyeballs are added on top of what UT and OU already bring.  Because they're conference teams, so now we all are interested in what's happening.  Why do I watch Tennessee play South Carolina?  Solely because as an LSU fan, it interests me to watch what's going on in the conference.  I hardly watch OU games, but I will be going forward.  Same would apply for Texas if I weren't married to a fan.  Same as right now I rarely watch FSU....but I would if they were an SEC team. 

So ESPN could not only keep their current SEC viewership, they could turn that entire viewership onto a few new teams, exploding those markets, and quit paying for ACC deadweight nobody is currently watching. 

I could be wrong, obviously, without having the benefit of the real numbers in front of me.  But that's my theory. 

Now, can ESPN sling enough $ to change anything?  Maybe not.  But like I say......water.  It may take eons, but it will win.  The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 10:52:30 AM
I think ESPN may have some incentive.  Assuming FSU and maybe one or two others turn on TVs at a higher rate--and I'm guessing they do--then those teams add exponential value to the SEC, and ESPN could have that value for less than the sum of its parts.  Meanwhile, they could drop the ACC entirely, because why would they care about an FSU-less, Clemson-less, Va. Techless (or whoever) ACC? 

Similar to Texas and OU joining the SEC.  UT/OU carry their own set of eyeballs with them, but moving to the SEC (or Big Ten) is not like moving anywhere else.  If those teams moved to the PAC 2 (or, just to be fair about this, let's say the PAC didn't implode and it was still the PAC 12), that's still mostly the extent of it....they carry that many eyeballs.  But the SEC/B1G have giant bases already built in, and now that many eyeballs are added on top of what UT and OU already bring.  Because they're conference teams, so now we all are interested in what's happening.  Why do I watch Tennessee play South Carolina?  Solely because as an LSU fan, it interests me to watch what's going on in the conference.  I hardly watch OU games, but I will be going forward.  Same would apply for Texas if I weren't married to a fan.  Same as right now I rarely watch FSU....but I would if they were an SEC team. 

So ESPN could not only keep their current SEC viewership, they could turn that entire viewership onto a few new teams, exploding those markets, and quit paying for ACC deadweight nobody is currently watching. 

I could be wrong, obviously, without having the benefit of the real numbers in front of me.  But that's my theory. 

Now, can ESPN sling enough $ to change anything?  Maybe not.  But like I say......water.  It may take eons, but it will win.  The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile. 

Right now the ACC deal is so bad, they already own FSU content for pennies on the dollar.  They'd have to pay a LOT more for that content, in the SEC.  So the question is, where's the balance?  Where's the breakeven point between the additional eyeballs they can bring to the SEC, and what they'd have to pay incrementally for it, versus maintaining the status quo and paying FSU and the ACC almost nothing for that content?

However aside from all that, there could be some value to ESPN, in keeping FSU away from the B1G and its rival television partners.

But also, ESPN is currently being viewed as a losing property by Disney and is being shopped around.  It's uncertain going forward that they're going to have ANY money to throw around.  Which is another reason to doubt ESPN's willingness to become involved in springing FSU or anyone else, from the ACC.  That would cost them additional money they probably don't currently have to spend.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on January 25, 2024, 11:10:09 AM
Top BBQ restaurants in each state, a ranking, sort-of.

https://travelerdoor.com/2023/10/12/bestbbq/?utm_campaign=TD-us-d-bestbbq-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G265-desktop-feedspla-BC-vv20-s-271223&utm_content=120203870853760734&utm_source=FB&utm_medium=120203870870450734&cq_src=facebook&cq_cmp=TD-us-d-bestbbq-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G265-desktop-feedspla-BC-vv20-s-271223&cq_con=120203870870450734&cq_med=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&cq_net=fb&fbclid=IwAR18urK5TNK2lSabd7DrR8FCjHJeZpQ1sjE90ZKjC3afgz9ezkXw5tCFHoo

I don’t think the SC one is right. Although maybe he has gotten better in the past few years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 25, 2024, 11:10:15 AM
Probably should make an ACC thread.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 25, 2024, 12:16:46 PM

But also, ESPN is currently being viewed as a losing property by Disney and is being shopped around.  It's uncertain going forward that they're going to have ANY money to throw around.  Which is another reason to doubt ESPN's willingness to become involved in springing FSU or anyone else, from the ACC.  That would cost them additional money they probably don't currently have to spend.

I've heard that.  Is that supposed to mean ESPN isn't profitable?  That would surprise me.  

Plus, out of all of Disney's arms, I'd think their recurring massive movie/TV failures that have been losing them $ hand over fist would blot out any concerns about ESPN, if not actively make ESPN the cash cow that pays the other bills in the meantime.  Their movie/TV dept. is on a massive run of losses, and their streaming service continues to hemorrhage $.  I imagine the theme parks are still doing well, but I don't know.  

In both directions--the fact I thought ESPN is successful, and the fact I know their film/streaming branches aren't--I'm surprised they want to dump ESPN.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 12:23:09 PM
I've heard that.  Is that supposed to mean ESPN isn't profitable?  That would surprise me. 

Plus, out of all of Disney's arms, I'd think their recurring massive movie/TV failures that have been losing them $ hand over fist would blot out any concerns about ESPN, if not actively make ESPN the cash cow that pays the other bills in the meantime.  Their movie/TV dept. is on a massive run of losses, and their streaming service continues to hemorrhage $.  I imagine the theme parks are still doing well, but I don't know. 

In both directions--the fact I thought ESPN is successful, and the fact I know their film/streaming branches aren't--I'm surprised they want to dump ESPN. 

Big-time live action sports still make money, but I wonder what percentage of ESPN/2/U/News/Ocho daily programming, is big-time live action sports?  Gotta be a tiny fraction.  And all the rest of their daily programming, is total crap and is losing money.

 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 25, 2024, 12:31:42 PM
What would it take for ESPN to break free from the cable/satellite companies and associated contracts?  If they could go completely a la carte, offer mainly live games and successful programming like College Game Day, they could do massive layoffs, cut the unprofitable content, and get more in the black. 

I personally would be irked by that, because it means in football season I'd have to turn on YTTV for FOX, NBC, and CBS, and then also whatever form ESPN's revamped service was.  However, from their standpoint, perhaps it would be worth it.

I imagine they'd lose viewers in that model because a certain amount of viewers will only access them through tradition cable/satellite.  But with an eye on the future, I think that stuff is dead anyway.  Judging by my step-sons and everyone their age I know, generations behind mine aren't "watching TV" anymore.  It's stream-or-die, and they'll never have cable unless some massive shift happens.  A move like that might hurt in the short-term, but may pay off long term.  Not sure.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 25, 2024, 01:20:14 PM
Judging by my step-sons and everyone their age I know, generations behind mine aren't "watching TV" anymore.  It's stream-or-die...

Agree on this in general, except for my 16yo daughter the exception, who hates sorting through all the various streaming apps and prefers a more traditional "cable" type viewing experience, where she can flip from channel to channel on a single consolidated guide.  I'm in the midst of dropping Spectrum's streaming "cable-package" in favor of YouTubeTV which has almost everything that was on my Spectrum app, plus a whole lot more.  It's about $20/month more but the additional content I think is worth it, plus the cloud DVR which I've done without since I switched to the straight streaming service from Spectrum.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 25, 2024, 01:26:28 PM
What would it take for ESPN to break free from the cable/satellite companies and associated contracts?  If they could go completely a la carte, offer mainly live games and successful programming like College Game Day, they could do massive layoffs, cut the unprofitable content, and get more in the black. 

I personally would be irked by that, because it means in football season I'd have to turn on YTTV for FOX, NBC, and CBS, and then also whatever form ESPN's revamped service was.  However, from their standpoint, perhaps it would be worth it.

I imagine they'd lose viewers in that model because a certain amount of viewers will only access them through tradition cable/satellite.  But with an eye on the future, I think that stuff is dead anyway.  Judging by my step-sons and everyone their age I know, generations behind mine aren't "watching TV" anymore.  It's stream-or-die, and they'll never have cable unless some massive shift happens.  A move like that might hurt in the short-term, but may pay off long term.  Not sure. 
What I think we've seen over the last 5(ish?) years is that it's not necessarily "stream or die". It was thought that cord-cutting would kill live TV. It didn't. Streaming services have cropped up that offer the same product as traditional linear cable/satellite TV with an alternative delivery method. So if you want live TV, you can pick cable/satellite. Or you can pick Hulu Live TV, YouTube TV, Sling, etc. They're all "streaming" but they're live TV. 

The ESPN model was to get included in the default/base offering for live TV. Whether that's cable/satellite, or whether that's streaming live TV. This way they could get revenue from ALL live TV subscribers, not just the ones that watched. Perhaps not as much per subscriber, of course, but they've made the calculation that they're going to get more revenue total by sticking there. 

What it would take is for them to determine based on their business model that throwing away the base subscribers on those platforms for higher-value standalone subscribers would be worth it and increase revenue. Because you know the *INSTANT* that they offer a standalone streaming service, every cable/satellite/streaming live TV service will stop offering it in the base package and force anyone who wants to have it to pay for a "sports tier" to keep ESPN. The fear here is that fans who you *think* really value the content only value the content because it's "free" i.e. part of a base plan. And that's something we see here on this board. People saying "yeah, I'm not subscribing to Peacock on top of cable to watch 2-3 CFB games a season involving my team--I'll just watch the highlights." People bitch about games not being on ESPN, but may not care enough to subscribe to something else to follow it. Just as I did when the NFL playoff game was on Peacock. Did I want to watch it? Yes. Did I want to watch it ENOUGH to do that? No. 

I'm sure they're watching all the other standalone streaming services as well. The other fear might be that you have subscribers who are year-round subscribers right now, but might become half-year (or less) subscribers in the future because sports are seasonal and they may only be interested in one sport. If you're a hardcore football fan, for example, you don't need ESPN before Labor Day or after the Super Bowl. They don't want to see their business model go the way of some streaming services where a new season of a show drops, everyone who loves that show signs up for 1 month of the service to binge it, and then cancels until the next year when the next season drops.

That tipping point may yet come. But I think for now they've just determined that this is the safer route. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on January 25, 2024, 04:00:16 PM
The issue with streaming was that is was only appealing when it was a semi-cable bundle. Now it’s quasi a La carte and no longer a great deal. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 25, 2024, 04:12:18 PM
specially when they are piggy backing on cable-internet.They don't have the overhead and still could cut their charges and make up for it on volume,then reputation
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 25, 2024, 06:45:41 PM
The issue with streaming was that is was only appealing when it was a semi-cable bundle. Now it’s quasi a La carte and no longer a great deal.
Which is exactly what so many of us predicted when people were clamoring for a la carte content. Be careful what you wish for, right? 

The morons in our society see cable that costs $100/mo and provides 100 channels, and think that if they know they only want 10 channels, they should be able to get that for $10/mo. It's not worth rehashing the economic arguments why that doesn't work, but those arguments were proven right. 

So people went from spending $100/mo on cable to probably spending >$100/mo on live TV + standalone streaming services, and complain about it. 

specially when they are piggy backing on cable-internet.They don't have the overhead and still could cut their charges and make up for it on volume,then reputation
I don't see an issue with piggy-backing on cable internet. They pay a ton of money to secure the nationwide network bandwidth they need that the cable guys don't have to pay. The cable guys don't need to pay that b/c they own the last-mile delivery.  

There were two primary ways that they "cut their charges":



The positive of the streaming live TV services is that it increases competition, which ultimately helps to keep cable from having a monopoly to exploit for pricing. But at the end of the day, it's the content owners that have to be paid, and they have to be paid whether you get the content from cable or streaming, so there's a floor on what a live TV provider can offer as pricing without losing money. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 26, 2024, 01:13:16 AM
ESPN would be more financially viable if they went back to showing tractor pulls at 3am.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 07:19:03 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FL6aCML.png)

I hear many folks claiming they have the worst drivers of any state, oddly enough.  Nobody claims to have the best.

And of course it's entirely an opinion unless based on some metric.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on January 26, 2024, 08:40:58 AM
Agree on this in general, except for my 16yo daughter the exception, who hates sorting through all the various streaming apps and prefers a more traditional "cable" type viewing experience, where she can flip from channel to channel on a single consolidated guide. 
WORD - No doubt your kid is prolly more tech savy than the average over 50/60 crowd.And that's where a lot of us are at,is constant sorting doable?  - sure but we're tired of sham artists moving the goal posts.Higher price stabbing,changing progaming,getting worse reception,basically a total lack of customer care. As if somehow them even mailing the bill out is too much of a burden.I have been OTA Antenna coming up on 2 yrs in April took some tweaking but I'm very happy and impressed with some of the line ups. I Have about 15 ft of coaxial cable hooked to the rabbit ears and i seemingly always find reception spots.I get quite clearly the "old" program channels.
ME TV
Antenna TV
COZI,GRIT,CATCHY COMEDY,etc,etc,etc, in my best Yul Brynner voice
I get the old History Channel(Story Television)programing,plus my old sit coms favs:
Becker
Frazier
3rd Rock From the Sun
Home Improvement
Coach
Two and a Half Men
Spin City
70s Show......

Many just irked and won't be held hostage to the jerks,sooner or later the worm will turn based on ratings alone. If not I might go back to the 30s/40s listening to radio and reading books by whale oil lamps


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 26, 2024, 09:00:51 AM
There were two primary ways that they "cut their charges":

  • Not related to overhead, but related to taxes/fees. Across the country, there are tons of taxes and fees that have been applied to cable TV (and possibly satellite, but it's been too long since I had satellite to know). The streamers could avoid that b/c they weren't beholden to local gov't.

as you know, avoiding the tax man is fleeting and futile

when the tax man loses enough revenue, they will find you
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 26, 2024, 09:08:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FL6aCML.png)

I hear many folks claiming they have the worst drivers of any state, oddly enough.  Nobody claims to have the best.

And of course it's entirely an opinion unless based on some metric.
Florida drivers do suck. I think the reason is simple.

Half of the people who live here come from #'s 2-4 in the above list.

Also #'s 9, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 22.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 26, 2024, 10:49:56 AM
Florida drivers do suck. I think the reason is simple.

Half of the people who live here come from #'s 2-4 in the above list.

Also #'s 9, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 22.
Almost everyone in Texas is from #6, so that explains a lot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 26, 2024, 12:23:23 PM
Almost everyone in Texas is from #6, so that explains a lot.

Well.....Mexico, and then California.  

6 million new residents in the last 3 years, woohoo!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 12:28:22 PM
An odd "fact" is that about 78% of drivers believe they are better than average.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 26, 2024, 12:35:49 PM
What I think we've seen over the last 5(ish?) years is that it's not necessarily "stream or die". It was thought that cord-cutting would kill live TV. It didn't. Streaming services have cropped up that offer the same product as traditional linear cable/satellite TV with an alternative delivery method. So if you want live TV, you can pick cable/satellite. Or you can pick Hulu Live TV, YouTube TV, Sling, etc. They're all "streaming" but they're live TV.

I didn't articulate my point very well.  What I mean is, judging by the admittedly limited sample size of young adults I know, they aren't doing ANY form of TV, traditional or streaming.  They aren't using YouTube TV, Hulu, etc., any more than they're using cable/satellite.  They don't care about the content that's carried there.  They use Netflix, Prime Video, HBOMax, etc.

Of course, as I think through it more, I see another flaw in my thinking.  What the above really means is that younger consumers are not watching sports anywhere, so my a la carte idea is perilous to ESPN anyway, because the example I'm giving as what ESPN may need to adjust to is a no-win situation.  

I'm sure there are many young people coming up who still want to watch live sports.  But I'll tell ya, in my sphere, though I've never thought about it, the youngsters aren't into sports like we were growing up.  Pretty much everyone I knew--and know, my age--is at least somewhat interested in watching sports, particularly football.  But as the age drops, that doesn't hold.  I wonder how representative my experience is of the overall population.  

Re: the rest of your post, I see your point and you've made a good case for why a la carte isn't a good idea for ESPN.  But what's the solution, then?  Whether they have incentives to keep doing what they're doing or not, they're evidently losing money doing what they're doing now, and that can't go on forever.  You have to provide 24/7 content if you're carried by the cable outfits, and as noted, nobody is watching the stuff that's not live games.  If not a la carte, then what?  Only the US gub'ment can lose money indefinitely, a corp. like ESPN will eventually have to adapt or die.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on January 26, 2024, 12:40:45 PM
An odd "fact" is that about 78% of drivers believe they are better than average.

If you want an outstanding example of oversimplification and bastardizing the philosophy of statistics....

I've always considered myself to be of average intelligence.  Reason being, I have met many people who I was certain are smarter than me, and I have met many people I was reasonably sure probably weren't as smart as me.  I am in the middle, therefore I am average.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 12:55:18 PM
Or in the median, as it were.

It probably isn't different from average on "intelligence" ...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2024, 10:31:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/gFHQQ0G.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 04, 2024, 09:38:20 AM
If you want an outstanding example of oversimplification and bastardizing the philosophy of statistics....

I've always considered myself to be of average intelligence.  Reason being, I have met many people who I was certain are smarter than me, and I have met many people I was reasonably sure probably weren't as smart as me.  I am in the middle, therefore I am average. 
A smart person would know their anecdotal evidence and sample size of one is meaningless.  :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2024, 08:42:38 AM
Sort of a ranking...

(https://i.imgur.com/z4ALJSU.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 05, 2024, 08:49:25 AM

Nebraska should probably use a little bit of that to beef up their football team. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 05, 2024, 09:37:31 AM
agreed, supposedly the football recruiting budget increased by 54%

Hey, at least they are #1 in one ranking!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 06, 2024, 12:56:40 PM
Lots of Big Ten here.

(https://i.imgur.com/HuEo1Dz.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 07, 2024, 09:06:08 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/EEfZToy.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 08, 2024, 10:50:41 AM
WTF?  I don't even know who that is?  

(https://i.imgur.com/bucJEem.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 08, 2024, 11:57:03 AM
WTF?  I don't even know who that is? 

(https://i.imgur.com/bucJEem.png)
Miles O'Neill, Hun School , Quarterback (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/Player/Miles-ONeill-46141335/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 08, 2024, 07:09:04 PM
It's OK Gigem.
I don't follow recruiting closely either 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 08, 2024, 09:52:37 PM
With the transfer portal, it's nearly meaningless anyway.  The better your class, the less likely you're going to keep as many.  Everyone can't play.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 09, 2024, 09:27:53 AM
There is a pretty solid correlation between final ranking on the field and final ranking in recruiting.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 09, 2024, 09:35:02 AM
Correlation... sure.  Causation?  Not so sure.

I could hypothesize that the best coaches get the best recruits that eventually become the best teams.  So is it the X's and the O's, or the Jimmys and the Joes?

Takes more than a simple mapping of recruiting rankings versus on-field rankings to make that determination.

And with the portal and college football free agency, it's going to be even harder to make those determinations.  If a school got the #1 recruiting class and 4 years later only 3 of those guys are still on the team, how do you measure that class's contribution to success (or failure)?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 09, 2024, 09:40:47 AM
In my opinion, having a great recruiting class is a lot better than not, even if other factors also are important.  To disparage it as "not very important" is a large over statement in my view.  And yes, some great recruiting classes fail to produce at times.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 09, 2024, 09:43:20 AM
In my opinion, having a great recruiting class is a lot better than not, even if other factors also are important.  To disparage it as "not very important" is a large over statement in my view.  And yes, some great recruiting classes fail to produce at times.



Who said this?  I assume you're not responding to me because I didn't say that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 09, 2024, 09:54:42 AM
With the transfer portal, it's nearly meaningless anyway.  The better your class, the less likely you're going to keep as many.  Everyone can't play. 
"nearly meaningless" is sort of like "not very important", to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 09, 2024, 10:10:30 AM
"nearly meaningless" is sort of like "not very important", to me.

Cool, thanks for quoting the original thing that you were responding to. 

That said, he's making a valid point.  I wouldn't use hyperbolic language like "nearly meaningless" but I won't be surprised in a couple of years if we're able to say it's " less relevant than it used to be in a measurable and statistically significant way."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 09, 2024, 10:14:59 AM
Sure, I agree with that, it likely will decline in relevance with more and more transfers, but it also could be that the portal "evens out", and maybe the programs that recruit well also win in the portal.  That could be interesting to watch.

UGA recruits well, but doesn't do exceptionally well in the portal.

The other factor is getting and keeping the players you really need as opposed to some 5 star who lacks effort or is at a position where you are loaded.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 09, 2024, 03:29:43 PM
well, if Georgia or Bama offers a 3 star, they immediately jump to a 4-star
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 10, 2024, 07:47:16 AM
"nearly meaningless" is sort of like "not very important", to me.

The fact that CU has the 90th-rated class, BUT ALSO:


When the transfers are incorporated, Colorado’s class is 22nd. His transfer class alone is 5th nationally. 

From 90th to 22nd....."nearly meaningless" doesn't seem so absurd, does it?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 10, 2024, 08:39:28 AM
I disagree entirely that recruiting rankings are anything close to "nearly meaningless".

Citing some single outlier is not very persuasive otherwise.  It's not really all that much to go from 90 to 22 anyway, a handful of stars can do it.  They'd be far better off with a recruiting ranking of 30 with transfers boosting them to maybe 13 or so.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 10, 2024, 09:08:32 AM
The fact that CU has the 90th-rated class, BUT ALSO:


When the transfers are incorporated, Colorado’s class is 22nd. His transfer class alone is 5th nationally.

From 90th to 22nd....."nearly meaningless" doesn't seem so absurd, does it?
22nd is WAY better
but Prime doesn't talk like he's gonna finish 22nd
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 10, 2024, 03:44:08 PM
I disagree entirely that recruiting rankings are anything close to "nearly meaningless".
No one even suggested this - the specific point is that traditional HS player rankings are now far, far less important, thanks to the transfer portal.

Citing some single outlier is not very persuasive otherwise.  It's not really all that much to go from 90 to 22 anyway, a handful of stars can do it.  They'd be far better off with a recruiting ranking of 30 with transfers boosting them to maybe 13 or so.  No shit.  Higher rankings are better than lower rankings.  That's what you just said here.  Duh.
I'm not even sure you believe your 2nd part.  Going from 90 to 22 is MASSIVE.  How in the holy hell can you suggest otherwise????????????
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2024, 05:58:15 AM
A team can add 7 or so 4 stars to a roster with none and go from the 90s to the 20s.  To me, it's not that huge a jump, it's very doable for a new coach like Sanders.  To claim recruiting rankings are "nearly meaningless" is, to me, absurd.  Most would agree they mean less than they did in the past because of the Portal, that's obvious, but they are still very meaningful, and predictive, more so than anything else I could contrive.

There is a pretty good correlation between recruiting rankings over 3-4 years prior and where a team finishes at the end of the season.  

Analyzing College Football's Relationship Between Recruiting Class Rankings and Wins - Stadium (watchstadium.com) (https://watchstadium.com/analyzing-college-footballs-relationship-between-recruiting-class-rankings-and-wins-07-01-2019/)

(https://i.imgur.com/VY7QEl3.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2024, 06:49:17 AM
Doc Journals - My medic expert (https://docjournals.com/djbestbbqcopy/?utm_campaign=DJ-ww-d-djbestbbqcopy-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G282-all-allpla-BC-vv5-afcd-250124&utm_content=120205254536610502&utm_source=FB&utm_medium=120205254537200502&cq_src=facebook&cq_cmp=DJ-ww-d-djbestbbqcopy-guido-V2GUIDOsol-G282-all-allpla-BC-vv5-afcd-250124&cq_con=120205254537200502&cq_med=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&cq_net=fb&fbclid=IwAR1_QJ5Feu9T_ht913l5p2RpuDkD_G271FkX2gX2tK8bRmeHTUw2TA8yGV0)

[color=rgb(51 51 51/var(--tw-text-opacity))]Atlanta, Georgia: Fox Bros. Bar-B-Q[/color]
Georgia is blessed with numerous fantastic BBQ restaurants, including one that Eater called one of Atlanta’s famous meat servers in 2015. Although the Fox Bros. Bar-B-Q joint provides many kinds of pork, its beef options always seem to come out on top.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 11, 2024, 03:47:04 PM
lol

Yeah, just get a bunch of 4* kids.  No problem.  No big deal.  



And your graph is based on data that pre-dates the portal, or at least the full effect of it.

You're not good at this.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2024, 04:40:48 PM
I figure in a given year, a team adds 25+ via recruiting, and then they lose 5 or so to the portal, and gain 5 or so in the portal.  I believe personally that recruiting is quite important, even if the importance is somewhat attenuated with the portal. It's a lesser factor, and the top teams recruit well.

A flashy first year coach may do unusually well using the portal, he may have to, but it is a rare event.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 11, 2024, 04:42:36 PM
it was rare for Prime
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 15, 2024, 09:32:15 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/U9y3lJS.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/NkrTm3x.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 15, 2024, 09:38:19 AM
I recall being in a small town somewhere and looked at the top five restaurants on Trip Advisor.  The top 2 were Red Lobster and Applebies.

Oops.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 15, 2024, 03:24:17 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Mk25j2b.png)

Texas must be the place you oughta be.  Swimming pools, movie stars, Elon Musk ...

NC is gaining on GA.  I can recall when GA was in the 4 million range.  Now Atlanta is projecting 8 million in the metro by 2050.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 16, 2024, 08:36:34 AM
Ranking SEC college towns from worst to first (usatoday.com) (https://ugawire.usatoday.com/lists/ranking-sec-college-towns-from-worst-to-first/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3xe9JO-BheufTtdI19LEWO58MJ4aSQ4Fv10mm3t8KfHxNiOp8b-P0PJEg)

Weird to have Nashville next to last, click bait really.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 17, 2024, 02:34:31 AM
I had some business with the "local" tag office south of us and after finishing, I drove to Fox Bros. BBQ.   I'm pleased to report it's still excellent.  Their brisket is not dry.  We had leftovers which I had for dinner.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Entropy on February 17, 2024, 10:11:34 AM
In my opinion, having a great recruiting class is a lot better than not, even if other factors also are important.  To disparage it as "not very important" is a large over statement in my view.  And yes, some great recruiting classes fail to produce at times.


as a Nebraska fan and living through the years of hearing coaches and fans say it's about development (as if the players from the 80's and 90's were mostly developed from zero stars), I can attest that you have to have good marble to make the Statue of David.   We've seen our share of flops, and rankings are not perfect as they don't account for player fit...   BUT, you have to have difference-makers and you have to recruit them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 17, 2024, 10:26:23 AM
I had some business with the "local" tag office south of us and after finishing, I drove to Fox Bros. BBQ.  I'm pleased to report it's still excellent.  Their brisket is not dry.  We had leftovers which I had for dinner.
seems a bit pricey - $6 for a sausage link - but when in Rome
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 17, 2024, 01:06:48 PM
BBQ prices are insane these days.  Completely off the rails.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 17, 2024, 02:38:38 PM
  We had leftovers 
I don't understand.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 17, 2024, 07:13:47 PM


If these ranking graphics didn't have titles/headers and it was just a random list of schools, how long on average would it take us to figure out the criteria by which they were ranked? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 17, 2024, 07:58:17 PM
some of us would NEVER get it and spoil the average
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 17, 2024, 10:07:47 PM
seems a bit pricey - $6 for a sausage link - but when in Rome
just checked one of my favorite BBQ spots in Iowa

$6 for a 1/4 pound sausage

geeez!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 19, 2024, 08:51:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTVTbdiR-nk
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 19, 2024, 09:11:19 AM
Rivalries are tough for me to rank, perhaps aside from the few of national significance.  Clemson-South Carolina for example is a very heated rivalry, locally.  Army-Navy?  Not so much really.

And of course rivalries change over time if one team gets a clear upper hand.    Anyway, just opinions, all fine with me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 19, 2024, 09:26:04 AM
As an outsider, in the B1G I know of the Michigan - Ohio State rivalry, of course.  And Wisconsin-Minnesota.  

I assume the intrastate schools have rivalries but I don't hear much about them.  Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-Michigan State.

I also hear about axes and oaken buckets and whatnot, but couldn't tell you which trophy belongs to which rivalry.  It's cool that they have those local traditions, though.  That's what college football SHOULD be all about.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 19, 2024, 09:30:38 AM
The AXE is in Madison as of today.

Illinois and NU is a thing. Iowa and UNL is becoming pretty heated.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 19, 2024, 09:30:55 AM
Same here.  The big ones for me are the main famous ones.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 19, 2024, 09:31:54 AM
The AXE is in Madison as of today.

Illinois and NU is a thing. Iowa and UNL is becoming pretty heated.
it's embarrassing, but true
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 19, 2024, 09:35:00 AM
The AXE is in Madison as of today.

Illinois and NU is a thing. Iowa and UNL is becoming pretty heated.
Oh yeah, that makes sense.  I always forget about Northwestern, even though I did a 2-month program there one summer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 19, 2024, 05:52:41 PM
Nationally, I don't think we all realize the heat between MIZ-KU and WV-Pitt
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 24, 2024, 10:31:46 AM
The Cabs That Offer the Best Bang for Your Buck, According to Somms:
Martha Stoumen Another Shore Cabernet Sauvignon/Valdiguié blend
Domaine du Temps Sans Ordonnance, Languedoc, France
2019 Golan Heights Yarden Cabernet Sauvignon, Galilee, Israel
Son of a Son Cab, Paso Robles, Calif.
Cultivar North Coast Cabernet Sauvignon
2020 Cole Ranch Cabernet Sauvignon
2019 Stark-Condé Cabernet Sauvignon, Stellenbosch, South Africa
2021 Les Lunes Sonoma Cabernet
Doubleback Cabernet Sauvignon, Walla Walla, Wash.
Vasse Felix Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River, Australia
2021 Gail Doris Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma Valley
Haras de Pirque Hussonet Cabernet Sauvignon, Maipo Valley, Chile
Peñalolén Cabernet Sauvignon from Domus Aurea, Maipo Valley, Chile
Broc Cellars Le Clairet The Perfect Red, Green Valley, Calif.
Aslina Cabernet Sauvignon, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Amavi Cellars, Walla Walla, Wash.
Sarget de Gruaud Larose, Saint-Julien, Bordeaux
Glenelly Estate, Stellenbosch, South Africa
2019 Josh Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon
Moldovan Cabs
Bodegas de Santo Tomás Cabernet Sauvignon, Baja California, Mexico
Fitapreta A Touriga Vai Nua


https://vinepair.com/articles/wa-somms-bang-for-buck-cabernet-sauvignon-2023/ (https://vinepair.com/articles/wa-somms-bang-for-buck-cabernet-sauvignon-2023/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 24, 2024, 11:53:06 AM
My weekday wine is Josh Cellars, usually.  I've noted before the Kirkland Box Cabernet is quite good at that price.  Their chardonnay is flabby as heck.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 24, 2024, 12:58:04 PM
I looked up that Son of a Son Cab from Paso Robles, and it doesn't appear to be available. All they're showing on their web site now is a red blend, and on their parent company winery (Clesi) they show an Aglianico. 

Seems like an odd situation... The winemaker is also the winemaker of the Clesi Vineyards brand, but appears to be making and bottling this under some sort of offshoot Son of a Son brand. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 24, 2024, 01:20:04 PM
Son of a Son Cabernet | Vivino US (https://www.vivino.com/US/en/son-of-a-son-cabernet/w/10565597)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 01, 2024, 09:53:37 AM
RANKED: The 30 Best Tailgating Schools In College Football (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ranked-the-30-best-tailgating-schools-in-college-football/ss-BB1j8tPB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=762499079c004b23805f351bd4789ad2&ei=22)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 03, 2024, 10:46:49 AM
Americas Most Loathed Highways | Gunther Volvo Cars Daytona Beach (https://www.gunthervolvocarsdaytona.com/americas-most-loathed-highways.htm)

An interesting list, I think, if perhaps not what we'd individually think.  Most of them refer to frequent congestion (duh).  Georgia had only one (I285).  The Downtown Connector here is usually highly congested of course (I75/85) because they joined two major freeways into one and never built the parallel freeway as had been planned.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 03, 2024, 10:48:26 AM
RANKED: The 30 Best Tailgating Schools In College Football (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ranked-the-30-best-tailgating-schools-in-college-football/ss-BB1j8tPB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=762499079c004b23805f351bd4789ad2&ei=22)

Looks about right to me, from what I hear from folks that go to a lot more stadiums than I do.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 03, 2024, 10:52:39 AM
Looks about right to me, from what I hear from folks that go to a lot more stadiums than I do.

"About right" really is good enough.  I've been for about six of those places, I didn't see much TGing around the Vol stadium at all, just a few isolated tents.  I was told most of it is elsewhere.  Maybe the Navy thing helps them.  Ole Miss was definitely Out There.

I thought Kentucky was pretty solid.  UGA is good because you have a very treed north campus where some of it happens and is nice, and south campus is where Game Day usually sets up, it's at least a lot of TGing.

I vaguely recall being in college and seeing folks coming to the game in pickup trucks eating a pregame meal out of the back of the truck.  I kinda viewed them as being too poor to afford restaurant food, or something.  It was not a big deal back then at all.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 04, 2024, 09:41:28 AM
Top 15 States With the Highest Real Estate Taxes (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/top-15-states-with-the-highest-real-estate-taxes/ss-BB1jaKSP?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e1b6defc035247b980e44fc088a4a667&ei=25#image=1)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on March 05, 2024, 04:27:50 AM
Check out this article excerpt from ESPN's all-CFP team of the decade:
If Henry's 2015 season set the standard for running backs, it was Taylor's career at Wisconsin that created the blueprint for consistent greatness. There have been 17 player seasons during the playoff era in which a tailback racked up 1,900 yards on the ground. Taylor is responsible for three of them. He finished his four-year Badgers career with 6,174 yards on the ground, the fourth-most all time (and second only to Donnel Pumphrey (https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/3047519/donnel-pumphrey) in the playoff era). He's the only player in history with multiple 2,000-yard seasons. He finished in the top 10 of Heisman voting three times. Taylor's Wisconsin teams made the Big Ten title game three times (2016, 2017 and 2019) but lost all three, leaving one true void on his résumé: reaching the playoff.
.
2 glaring errors.....just sloppy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 05, 2024, 05:53:13 AM
Check out this article excerpt from ESPN's all-CFP team of the decade:
If Henry's 2015 season set the standard for running backs, it was Taylor's career at Wisconsin that created the blueprint for consistent greatness. There have been 17 player seasons during the playoff era in which a tailback racked up 1,900 yards on the ground. Taylor is responsible for three of them. He finished his four-year Badgers career with 6,174 yards on the ground, the fourth-most all time (and second only to Donnel Pumphrey (https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/3047519/donnel-pumphrey) in the playoff era). He's the only player in history with multiple 2,000-yard seasons. He finished in the top 10 of Heisman voting three times. Taylor's Wisconsin teams made the Big Ten title game three times (2016, 2017 and 2019) but lost all three, leaving one true void on his résumé: reaching the playoff.
.
2 glaring errors.....just sloppy.
Make that 3. Taylor was in high school in 2016.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 05, 2024, 07:39:44 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NkqUI9j.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 05, 2024, 07:46:31 AM
interesting ranking

the top 5 follow 5 star recruiting
the next 5 do not

Cal = QB "U"? - Rogers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 05, 2024, 07:50:17 AM
interesting ranking

the top 5 follow 5 star recruiting
the next 5 do not

Cal = QB "U"? - Rogers
Goff.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 06, 2024, 02:03:15 PM
The 5 Best Airlines For First Class In 2024 (simpleflying.com) (https://simpleflying.com/best-airlines-first-class-list/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox-SF&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2CxkJKKsPXSVriNGIa-N54uDa6Efojp8jK2_U8Nzy-tljRdM3A-dqMMKc#singapore-airlines-first-class)

The expense of any first class seat internationally is eye watering.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2024, 09:07:19 AM
Most Reliable SUVs: Which Dependable Brands Dominate? (motortrend.com) (https://www.motortrend.com/features/most-reliable-suvs/?sm_id=organic%3Asm_id%3Afb%3AMT%3Atrueanthem&fbclid=IwAR0dsj4MFNT4pE34_fcb4tgCULQUpkQW1O5RQlG06Gm1jPubu0KOXlr5gBI)

Not sure how they measure this ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 09, 2024, 12:59:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ejf6tFC.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 12, 2024, 09:23:09 PM
Continued excellence in innovation helped the University of Nebraska improve its ranking among the world’s leading academic institutions for earning patents.

In a recent report from the National Academy of Inventors, the NU system ranks 73rd worldwide after earning 46 U.S. utility patents in 2023. Nebraska was No. 79 in 2022 and has now been included in the top 100 list for seven consecutive years.

Among U.S. institutions, Nebraska is No. 55. Within the growing Big Ten, Nebraska is tied with Indiana and Rutgers, ahead of Michigan State and Penn State. Iowa and Oregon are not ranked in the top 100.

“This is further proof that together as one team, Nebraska can compete with the best of the best,” said Chris Kabourek, interim president of the NU system. “I’m incredibly proud that the talents and creativity of our faculty are being recognized in this way. Not only does their work position Nebraska in elite company, but more importantly, the discoveries of our faculty are growing our economy and improving the lives of Nebraskans and people around the world.”

Patents are granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to the university’s technology transfer offices — NUtech Ventures at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and UNeMed Corp. at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and University of Nebraska at Omaha. These patents deliver innovation in key areas, including health care, agriculture, engineering and biotechnology, to the marketplace. They result in new startup companies, jobs and university-licensed products that grow the Nebraska economy and improve quality of life worldwide.

“Improving Nebraska’s place in this ranking reflects the commitment of our faculty to pursue innovative ideas that deliver real-world solutions,” said UNL Chancellor Rodney D. Bennett. “The positive impacts of this research are incredible — launching startups companies; generating local jobs; and offering career-shaping lab experiences to our students that have them ready to work on day one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on March 13, 2024, 06:32:54 AM
Although the Huskers have gone from royalty to being obsolete, the University of Minnesota has the patent on that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on March 15, 2024, 07:30:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452zsroJmn4
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 25, 2024, 08:28:56 AM
The 17 greatest restaurants in Atlanta (opentable.com) (https://www.opentable.com/blog/best-restaurants-atlanta-reservations-takeout/?ref=2342&sp=social_&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid_social&utm_campaign=editorialusasc&fbclid=IwAR0No3TfOtCXHecB-I6CZX93e3H2ExoCgxeXCpgsss18J-VhKu0GFsP0ksg_aem_AaeOjHUK2zhl3KIbKazY2XkWsk4fU1ETGyKrFKNpvT7Q1jmjXQxK8am1Dbj8HUK0bCwajYg8XoX37-MNBbrYEw7U)

As usual, I disagree here some, but what can you expect?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on March 25, 2024, 10:23:19 PM


What are the 17 worst restaurants in Atlanta? 

Or would all 17 of them be a Krystal? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 26, 2024, 05:02:37 AM
Krystal is pretty bad last I tried it (years ago, on a trip).  The bad individual places go bust pretty quick obviously.  I'm sure some here could dine at any one of these restaurants on the list and find it mediocre, or over priced.  Bones, for example, is more of a social thing than a great steakhouse in my view.  We dined there once.  It was packed on a Tuesday.

I've taken people to the local Korean Chicken place and they've all said it was fantastic.  There are a number of other small places near us that are very good in my view, but almost unknown for such lists.  We don't have many national chains near us fortunately, there is a Panera and a Chipotle, I can't think of another place in walking distance.

The nearest McDs is about two miles distant, I ain't walking for that.  Well, we have a Chick Fil A down the street too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 27, 2024, 10:18:53 AM
Projecting college football's 11 most intimidating environments during 2024 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/projecting-college-footballs-11-most-intimidating-environments-during-2024-season-229322127/#2394402)

This is rather silly to me.  The most intimidating stadium would be the one with the best team, maybe one could include some vennue that is particularly hostile like Penn State or Iowa even if they happened to be so so.  I don't think they even included Ohio State, but I glanced quickly.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 28, 2024, 06:36:03 AM
Atlanta zip codes on best places to live list | 11alive.com (https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/best-zip-codes-to-live-metro-atlanta-zip-codes/85-f03abf08-4739-4a34-95c4-342bab503f13?fbclid=IwAR1kjLHoe0hzdhJttVb8DVxXSQU9Zel7oAyy2gCgCeScRiBjrKV_yqDwOKo)

This thread has made me more conscious of how many "rankings" are out there, I used to ignore them for the most part.  Humans seem to need this stuff for some reason.

I happen to reside in one of these ACs, not that is matters to me whether I did or did not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 28, 2024, 07:00:11 AM
Projecting college football's 11 most intimidating environments during 2024 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/projecting-college-footballs-11-most-intimidating-environments-during-2024-season-229322127/#2394402)

This is rather silly to me.  The most intimidating stadium would be the one with the best team, maybe one could include some vennue that is particularly hostile like Penn State or Iowa even if they happened to be so so.  I don't think they even included Ohio State, but I glanced quickly.


Michigan stadium is NOT loud or intimidating. At all.

Me no like.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 28, 2024, 07:18:44 AM
Sure, it's someone's ranking, and I'd bet "we" could do better here, but then, who's to say what is better?  Leaving out Ohio State and Penn State seem like big misses to me also.  Sanford Stadium (#2) can be loud, but it's open on the west end, and the seats are pretty far from the field.    Then there is the question of how good the home team is that year of course.

But, it's a ranking, it got clicks.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 28, 2024, 07:40:19 AM
B1G

1. Kinnick
2. Ohio
3. Beaver
4. Camp Randall
5. Spartan
6. Memorial (UNL)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 28, 2024, 07:44:55 AM
My own ranking for SEC Venues, mostly based on TV:

LSU
Tennessee (I've been there, it gets really loud)
Auburn
Alabama
Texas
Florida

So far, this is somewhat aligned with seating capacity.

I'd put UGA around here, don't know about OU really.  South Carolina can bet intimidating at times.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 28, 2024, 07:45:46 AM
Kinnick doesn't scare me, but then there's a lot of RED in there most times
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 28, 2024, 07:51:15 AM
My understanding is smaller stadia can be "loud" because of nearness of stands to the field, examples being Kinnick, Oregon, VT, and maybe a few others.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 28, 2024, 09:45:41 AM
Memorial Stadium in Austin is pretty wide open, and the crowd is fairly wine and cheese, so it's not all that intimidating.  Every now and then, for a REALLY big game, it gets loud.  After the 2022 game, one of the Alabama players commented it was among the most loud and most rowdy crowds he'd ever experienced, but that's really the exception.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 28, 2024, 11:11:17 AM
Memorial Stadium in Lincoln isn't nearly as loud as it was in the 80s

Much more wine & cheese corporate types and fewer blue collar real fans.

real fans can't afford tickets these daze
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 28, 2024, 11:29:48 AM
Memorial Stadium in Lincoln isn't nearly as loud as it was in the 80s

Much more wine & cheese corporate types and fewer blue collar real fans.

real fans can't afford tickets these daze
word
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 28, 2024, 11:37:02 AM
there was no chance at verbal audibles or snap count back in the 80s

clapping to get the snap??? forgettaboutit

none of today's stadiums are as loud as they once were
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 28, 2024, 11:40:07 AM
I think Sanford is a lot louder today than it was a few decades back.  And the recent run has made it louder of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 28, 2024, 01:06:59 PM
there was no chance at verbal audibles or snap count back in the 80s

clapping to get the snap??? forgettaboutit

none of today's stadiums are as loud as they once were
I agree with that.

Camp Randall used to be deafening. Now the blue hairs sit and clap politely.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 12, 2024, 10:35:25 AM
Greece ranked safest European country for travel and leisure according to USNews.
The current Safe Travel list is as follows:
1. Greece
2. Italy
3. Finland
4. France
5. Sweden
6. Germany
7. Spain
8. Portugal
9. United Kingdom
10. Iceland


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 12, 2024, 11:06:41 AM
hummm....

My father traveled to Greece a couple decades ago with my brother
didn't seem real safe in their opinion, but things change
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 12, 2024, 11:11:30 AM
That's interesting... Especially with the financial issues and some corresponding unrest about half a decade ago. I wouldn't have assumed it tops the list. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 09:31:07 AM
I've dined at four of these, thought they were "OK", probably better than McDs.  I'd throw Chick Fil A in there because of their service, and their sandwish is fine enough.  To me, this is akin to "tallest midget" contest, but whatever.  Give me a Whopper and I'm OK.

(https://i.imgur.com/uALv0rB.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 09:39:04 AM
fox (fake) news

slanted
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 09:44:17 AM
Absolutely true, so I'll provide another listing for comparison.

Best Fast Food Restaurants in America (fodors.com) (https://www.fodors.com/news/photos/best-fast-food-restaurants-in-america)

The fact they list White Castle at 10th is .... somewhat of a sign I think.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 09:55:58 AM
The 30 Best Burgers You Can Find In America (housecultures.com) (https://housecultures.com/trending/best-burgers-america-syn/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120209837963600215&utm_campaign=Best+Burgers+Ranked+HC+Beryz0904+v1+Dynamic+HC+Monitization+Test+6+a986+-+Unknown+USA+FB+CRT&network_code=CRT&utm_term=content&v=3&site_code=HC&hashed_lean_url=5d5f3db4704bea80565bada2169e4502&ppc=1&c1=120209837936660215&c2=120209837938510215&c3=120209837963600215&utm_id=120209837936660215&fbclid=IwAR2Oa2sSIWXNe62bBLrxiVH9dv_3GKtC-WevT92Ec2OD2JbLw_3nzyciSY8_aem_AWutWDoMwDUc4Sz_APZfInyc8Tq_WDIihWLLiWOpnN8UTHfNNVGDegpaa3MzIe5AXYy7YPMQ2AYOOr8PEXII0NMi&r=1#section-9)

They include Fox Bros. on the list.  While their burger does include Q, anyone ordering it should be filandered.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 09:58:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/2U2OXKi.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 10:10:32 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/vijJJvT.png)

This is the burger chain I couldn't think of, I used to take my kids there fairly often.  We'd get whatever pretty cheaply and eat on benches there if the weather was nice, or go into the park and dine there.

I thought the burgers were "OK" and quite a bit cheaper than anywhere else.  Maybe they use mystery meat.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 10:19:28 AM
pink slime
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 10:21:24 AM
That "pink slime" story was all the rage for about two weeks, and then ....

I find this is true for most "news" stories of that ilk.  Everyone gets incensed, and then goes on about their lives as if ...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 10:24:00 AM
In March 2012, an ABC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_News) series about "pink slime" included claims that approximately 70% of ground beef sold in US supermarkets contained the additive at that time. Some companies and organizations stopped offering ground beef with the product. "Pink slime" was claimed by some originally to have been used as pet food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food) and cooking oil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_oil) and later approved for public consumption,[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-abc70-11) but this was disputed in April 2012, by both the Food and Drug Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration) (FDA) administrator responsible for approving the product and Beef Products, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_Products,_Inc.) (BPI), the largest US producer of the additive.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-Cattlenetwork-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-beefisbeef-13) In September 2012, BPI filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company) for false claims about the product.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-CNN-Eatocracy-14) By 2017 BPI was seeking $1.9 billion in damages.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-NYT_ABC_vs_BPI_2017-15) On June 28, 2017, ABC announced that it had settled the suit.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-NYT_settlement-16) Terms of the settlement were at least $177 million (US).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-17) Counsel for BPI stated that this was at that time the largest amount ever paid in a media defamation case in the United States.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-18)
The product is regulated in different manners in various regions. In the US, the product is allowed to be used in ground beef, and it can be used in other meat products such as beef-based processed meats. The use of ammonia as an anti-microbial agent is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration), and is included on the FDA's list of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) procedures, and is used in similar applications for numerous other food products, including puddings and baked goods.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime#cite_note-Beef_Magazine-19) The product is not allowed in Canada due to the presence of ammonia, and is banned for human consumption in the European Union. Some consumer advocacy groups have promoted the elimination of the product or for mandatory disclosure of additives in beef, while others have expressed concerns about plant closures that occurred after the product received significant news media coverage.
In December 2018, lean finely textured beef was reclassified as "ground beef" by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Safety_and_Inspection_Service) of the United States Department of Agriculture.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 10:40:13 AM
Eldon Roth, President and creator of BPI, worked for IBP and was on the board of directors.
I worked for Iowa Beef Processors (IBP) back in the 80s and spoke with Eldon on a few occasions.

The IBP beef processing plant and the BPI pink slime plant were side by side in Dakota City, NE.
BPI corporate office in Dakota Dunes, SD

both within a few miles of Sioux City, IA

local story , therefore BIG in the area
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 14, 2024, 01:15:53 PM
I love how just offering actual, normal beef isn't even an option.  

As long as it's 51% of what it claims to be, the other 49% can be whatever the hell you want it to be, provided you have the lobbyists for it.

Our economic system at work.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 01:19:55 PM
it's all 100% beef
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2024, 01:41:30 PM
Yeah, that 51% notion is not broadly true at all, not even close. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 14, 2024, 05:10:08 PM
Yeah, that 51% notion is not broadly true at all, not even close.
it's all 100% beef
I guess you got me there.  Snouts and tendons and shit.  Good eatin'.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 14, 2024, 05:12:55 PM
Those are considered delicacies in some parts of the world, and at the very least a completely acceptable food source in many other parts of the world.

I sometimes find it amusing how we pick and choose which parts of an animal are acceptable to eat, or even which animals are okay and which are "pets" or "friends."

#firstworldproblems
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 14, 2024, 07:54:11 PM
How about muscle tissue?  Is that too hoity-toity?  It IS a first-world problem, but we live in the first world.  Everyone else needs every calorie they can possibly take in.  
We have enriched wheat flour and eat tons of meat.  Don't need all the other parts.  Sorry/not sorry.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 09:14:59 PM
pink slime is 100% muscle tissue

just gleaned from the bones and other areas with new technology to extract it

you want Snouts and tendons and shit - eat all beef hot dogs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 14, 2024, 09:53:01 PM
you want Snouts and tendons and shit - eat all beef hot dogs
Or spend a couple days in Vietnam.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 14, 2024, 10:07:55 PM
dog snouts and tendons
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 06:46:45 AM
I think we all know more or less what's in hotdogs, and sausage.  Ground beef is just that.  We have ingredient labels which I know few read.  There is a lot of "hidden" salt and sugar in a ton of things, though it's all listed on the label.

There is a regulation on wines from California about the varietal in the wine, if not listed specifically.  Anything saying "merlot" as the type of wine must be at least 75% merlot.  This is not a big deal usually as a blend that isn't 75% of one varietal may be called simply "red wine" and still be superb.  Or not.

Wine "ratings" and "gold medals" seem to have abated a bit fortunately.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 15, 2024, 08:31:41 AM
most people that have seen hotdogs made won't eat them
I still do on occasion, not often

pink slime is way better
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 15, 2024, 09:51:39 AM
I think we all know more or less what's in hotdogs, and sausage.  Ground beef is just that.  We have ingredient labels which I know few read.  There is a lot of "hidden" salt and sugar in a ton of things, though it's all listed on the label.

There is a regulation on wines from California about the varietal in the wine, if not listed specifically.  Anything saying "merlot" as the type of wine must be at least 75% merlot.  This is not a big deal usually as a blend that isn't 75% of one varietal may be called simply "red wine" and still be superb.  Or not.

Wine "ratings" and "gold medals" seem to have abated a bit fortunately.



Bordeaux are blends and they're the most delicious wines in the world.  :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 09:56:31 AM
Bordeauxs nearly always are blends, maybe a scant few are 100%, I don't know of any.  Burgundies are usually 100% though some of their chardonnays have aligote in them.  

A surprise to some folks is that Champagnes often contain pinot noir and pinot meunier as well as chardonnay, or even with no chard.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 15, 2024, 10:02:41 AM
I don't know of any Bordeaux that's 100%.  My favorites are the Left Bank which tend to be around 70-75% Cabernet Sauvignon, and maybe 20% Merlot, with the remainder being Cabernet Franc and/or Petit Verdot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 10:07:04 AM
Malbec is the other allowed grape in red Bordeauxs, and I don't know of any that are 100% either.  The right banks tend to be merlot heavy of course, maybe merlot and cab franc.  Some of the most expensive ones are unclassified, like Petrus.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 15, 2024, 10:15:15 AM
Malbec is the other allowed grape in red Bordeauxs, and I don't know of any that are 100% either.  The right banks tend to be merlot heavy of course, maybe merlot and cab franc.  Some of the most expensive ones are unclassified, like Petrus.
Yup, hence my preference.  

But I'm down with Left Bank, too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 10:50:28 AM
If someone offered to buy me a bottle of a something at a nice restaurant, I'd first look at a red burgungy, and then maybe a Brunello with some age on it.

But I wouldn't turn down a Bordeaux of course.  Interesting how many good wines start with B, barollo, barbaresco, brunello, Bordeaux, Boone's ....  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 15, 2024, 02:09:46 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XT8V5Z1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 02:37:01 PM
Here are the 2023 rankings for most passengers (with 2022 rankings in parentheses):


Number 2 surprises me.  I've been through all of them except number 10.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 15, 2024, 03:10:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/pUM8lw5.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 15, 2024, 03:18:57 PM
Yutosek might not be a starter. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 15, 2024, 03:22:06 PM
How much money every player made at the 2024 Masters
Win: Scottie Scheffler, $3.6 million
2. Ludvig Aberg, $2.16 million
T3. Collin Morikawa, $1,040,000
T3. Tommy Fleetwood, $1,040,000
T3. Max Homa, $1,040,000
T6. Cameron Smith, $695,000
T6. Bryson DeChambeau, $695,000
8. Xander Schauffele, $620,000
T9. Will Zalatoris, $540,000
T9. Tyrrell Hatton, $540,000
T9. Cameron Young, $540,000
T12. Patrick Reed, $405,000
T12. Matthieu Pavon, $405,000
T12. Adam Schenk, $405,000
T12. Cameron Davis, $405,000
T16. Sepp Straka, $310,000
T16. Chris Kirk, $310,000
T16. Byeong Hun An, $310,000
T16. Nicolai Hojgaard, $310,000
T20. Taylor Moore, $250,000
T20. Lucas Glover, $250,000
T22. Keegan Bradley, $175,500
T22. Min Woo Lee, $175,500
T22. Harris English, $175,500
T22. Adam Scott, $175,500
T22. Joaquin Niemann, $175,500
T22. Rory McIlroy, $175,500
T22. Matt Fitzpatrick, $175,500
T22. Patrick Cantlay, $175,500
T30. Tom Kim, $124,200
T30. Jason Day, $124,200
T30. Si Woo Kim, $124,200
T30. J.T. Poston, $124,200
T30. Rickie Fowler, $124,200
T35. Kurt Kitayama, $103,000
T35. Camilo Villegas, $103,000
T35. Akshay Bhatia, $103,000
T38. Russell Henley, $86,000
T38. Corey Conners, $86,000
T38. Luke List, $86,000
T38. Hideki Matsuyama, $86,000
T38. Ryan Fox, $86,000
T43. Phil Mickelson, $72,000
T43. Shane Lowry, $72,000
T45. Denny McCarthy, $57,200
T45. Jose Maria Olazabal, $57,200
T45. Sahith Theegala, $57,200
T45. Brooks Koepka, $57,200
T45. Jon Rahm, $57,200
T45. Danny Willett, $57,200
51. Grayson Murray, $49,200
52. Eric Cole, $48,000
T53. Adam Hadwin, $46,800
T53. Neal Shipley (a), $0
T55. Jake Knapp, $44,400
T55. Erik van Rooyen, $44,400
T55. Tony Finau, $44,400
T58. Vijay Singh, $41,400
T58. Thorbjorn Olesen, $41,400
60. Tiger Woods, $39,600
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 15, 2024, 04:52:27 PM
Man, I've never followed golf very closely, but now apparently I follow it even less.  I only recognized maybe 5 names on that list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 15, 2024, 11:47:41 PM
This is sort of a ranking thing....at least an identified #1.

I've asked here about the best pass defense in college football history, even doing a poll.
But I researched it some more tonight and I think I've found it. 

What has made it hard is putting things in the context of the different eras.  The stats are what they are, but have to be taken in the context in which they played.  A baseball example would be a pitcher going out and having a 1.12 ERA now compared to Gibson in '68....it would be immensely more impressive (and better) today.

You can go back far in time to find the best statistical pass defenses, which largely faced option offenses and wobbly lob passes.  And I had thought the 2011 Alabama pass D was probably the best ever, but hadn't pulled the trigger on that official designation in my Whoa Nellie Game (as I have with the all-time best run D:  1993 Arizona). 

All that being said, it looks like 1999 Kansas State had the best pass D ever. 
The '97 and '98 KSU squads are more known and sexier (I'm looking at you, Michael Bishop), but the '99 Cats' pass D was an all-time killer.

I'll compare it to the 97 UM pass D and the '11 Tide effort:
.
Att  - Pct  - Int - ypa -TD all - pass rating
292 - 49.7 - 22 - 4.4 - 4 - 75.8
334 - 41.2 - 16 - 4.3 - 7 - 84.7
315 - 37.5 - 21 - 4.3 - 5 - 65.7
.
1999 KSU is the last one. 
Nuts.

Even the great 2001 Miami team's 5 TD passes allowed and 27 INTs yield a higher opp pass rating than 1999 KSU. 
Double nuts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 09:05:18 AM
93 Zona played in the PAC
not a run heavy conference
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 09:21:25 AM


Bib Gourmand: Signifies great value, highlighting simple yet skillful cooking at an affordable price




One MICHELIN Star: Restaurants where dishes with distinct flavors are prepared to a consistently high standard




Two MICHELIN Stars: Awarded when the personality and talent of the chef are evident in their expertly crafted dishes




Three MICHELIN Stars: Chefs at the peak of their profession whose cooking has been elevated to an art form
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 16, 2024, 09:56:15 AM

Bib Gourmand: Signifies great value, highlighting simple yet skillful cooking at an affordable price




One MICHELIN Star: Restaurants where dishes with distinct flavors are prepared to a consistently high standard




Two MICHELIN Stars: Awarded when the personality and talent of the chef are evident in their expertly crafted dishes




Three MICHELIN Stars: Chefs at the peak of their profession whose cooking has been elevated to an art form

I'm good with the Bibs and the 1* places. Topolobampo in Chicago is a great 1*. Probably the best Michelin place I've eaten at. Topolobampo - Chicago Restaurant (topolochicago.com) (https://topolochicago.com/)

I'm also good with many of the places not mentioned at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 10:10:18 AM
yup, not impressed with personality and art on my plate
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2024, 10:24:43 AM
I understand a fine restaurant should pay attention to "plating", it's part of the deal.  But for me, a dish shouldn't look like something in an art gallery.  

We dined twice at a place here that later got a star, and it is very good in all respects (and expensive).  The courses look very nice, there is plenty to eat, and everything is very tasty.  The wine prices aren't insane.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 10:46:48 AM
"plating" "presentation" is more important for some than others

If my lasagna tips over or is upside down on my plate, it still tastes the same to me

just don't short me on the gravy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2024, 10:59:44 AM
I don't think "plating" is much of a factor for lasagna or spaghetti or even steak or hamburger.  But in some "fine" restaurant, I expect some attention to plating.  It's part of the deal.

Even a moderately priced Italian place will often throw down a sprig of parsely on lasagna, maybe even an "Olive Garden" does it.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 11:12:20 AM
I understand.

It just doesn't mean much at all to me.

I'm a poor dirt farmer
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 16, 2024, 06:32:54 PM

Bib Gourmand: Signifies great value, highlighting simple yet skillful cooking at an affordable price




One MICHELIN Star: Restaurants where dishes with distinct flavors are prepared to a consistently high standard
a small meal, but it was good, so you're happy



Two MICHELIN Stars: Awarded when the personality and talent of the chef are evident in their expertly crafted dishes
a smaller meal, kinda weird, you grab a burger on the way home



Three MICHELIN Stars: Chefs at the peak of their profession whose cooking has been elevated to an art form
is this food?  not sure what it is, not sure how to eat it.  you sit and eat at a known commodity restaurant afterward
My guesstimates...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 16, 2024, 06:34:58 PM
93 Zona played in the PAC
not a run heavy conference
They allowed fewer rushing yards than rushing attempts.
Case closed.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2024, 06:45:55 PM
The 3 star where we had lunch had plenty of food. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 06:49:05 PM
They allowed fewer rushing yards than rushing attempts.
Case closed.


because the PAC was a passing conference?
How many 1,000 yard rushers in the PAC in 93?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 16, 2024, 06:59:46 PM
Allowing fewer than a yard per carry for a season would be impressive in 7-on-7, lol.  Sigh.

There were three 1,000 yd rushers in the PAC that year.  Arizona played 2 of them. 
There were 4 in the Big Ten.  Two in the Big 8.  Three in the SEC. 

Arizona played Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, shutting them out for the first time since 1979.  The Canes had 35 yards rushing.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 16, 2024, 07:03:50 PM
It's official:  I'll get push-back on anything I post.  Jesus.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 08:06:59 PM
wasn't pushing back so much as asking questions

see the "?"?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2024, 08:35:43 PM
It's official:  I'll get push-back on anything I post.  Jesus.
No you won’t. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 16, 2024, 08:49:06 PM
wasn't pushing back so much as asking questions

see the "?"?
It was just the flex eagle defense aka "Desert Swarm" with the right personnel.  
The year before, they allowed 1.9 ypc (a "normal" number for great, all-time rush defenses).  
.
The 1992 Arizona team led the country in scoring D, allowing only 8.2 points per game......but went 6-5-1.  Imagine being the OC for that squad.  Fuck.  
.
But when it comes to all-time great rush defenses, the ones that come to mind, they allowed 1.5-2.4 yards per carry average.  The best of the best.  
0.9 is on another world.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2024, 09:19:40 PM
Man, I've never followed golf very closely, but now apparently I follow it even less.  I only recognized maybe 5 names on that list.
(https://i.imgur.com/TOpPbjo.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 17, 2024, 12:29:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/E7TXaZ5.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 17, 2024, 01:11:35 PM
I'd replace Oregon with Bama
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 18, 2024, 11:08:41 AM
Study reveals college football teams with biggest fan bases - College Football HQ (si.com) (https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-rankings-teams-fan-bases-ohio-state-texas-alabama-georgia-notre-dame)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 18, 2024, 03:50:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dUL9OeS.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 10:33:59 AM
Always good to see studies that confirm the obvious:

What’s the average commute time for Georgia drivers? Study ranks it among the highest – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/whats-average-commute-time-georgia-drivers-study-ranks-it-among-highest/AB2PBX7BQJCJDPC5RZJCMWB3SQ/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1PxeuMw7hfZpz_XqgKwxtfj-u3rkzph5wqqTqyo2tcbQAnE7vW0OMPpBg_aem_AR6kePlo1zPxZNPhjeOXryx0SBSHo2rhTRNeys15ocOA-g6Fyyg1-aAzmUafwzDtLLpK9BUA_G140w8edC7MSkUj)

The energy department says that a Georgia driver spent an average of 28.4 minutes for a one-way commute. That is tied for seventh place with Illinois. Georgia’s commute time is also above the national average of 26.7 minutes.

The top spots from first to sixth were New York, Maryland, New Jersey, D.C., Massachusetts and California.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 10:43:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AESNU57.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 20, 2024, 02:45:49 PM
Tax the rich!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 03:35:20 PM
Force the poor to be so poor they don't have to pay taxes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 03:38:07 PM
Force the poor to be so poor they don't have to pay taxes.
I don't know of anyone who favors that approach.  I certainly don't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 03:39:09 PM
I don't know of anyone who favors that approach.  I certainly don't.
Everyone with quarterly share-holder meetings does.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 03:47:36 PM
I have no clue why anyone with "quarterly shareholder meetings" would want the poor to be more poor.  I think quite the opposite.  A larger market is better for most for profit corporations, I don't know of an exception.

And I could participate in 'quartery shareholder meetings' though in general, they are on an annual basis.  I keep getting asked to vote on some shareholder motions.

And I personally wish the poor were doing better, and do what I can to aid them.

An interesting thing about the "disappearing middle class" we hear about, most of those who depart it move to the upper class.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 03:49:45 PM


An interesting thing about the "disappearing middle class" we hear about, most of those who depart it move to the upper class.
I will bet you every cent I earn for the rest of my life that this isn't true.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 04:31:12 PM
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 04:34:16 PM
How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/)

(https://i.imgur.com/gWP272n.png)

So, 4% went to the lower income class, and 7% went to the upper income class, so the middle class shrunk.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 04:43:44 PM
From your article:

(https://i.imgur.com/2s71Tjw.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 04:45:08 PM
7% > 4%.

The math may be hard for some here.

I'm not talking about the "extremes".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 04:48:23 PM
Ignoring your own source is an interesting tactic.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 04:51:41 PM
Being unable to read a simple chart is as well.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 04:59:16 PM
The most interesting part of the Pew report, perhaps, was its finding that the middle class is shrinking not only because more people are poor but also because more people are rich. The percentage of lowest-income earners—those earning less than two-thirds of the median income—had grown four percentage points, from 25% to 29% of the population.1 Over that same period, though, the percentage of Americans in the highest-income households also rose by seven points since 1971, taking that group from 14% to 21% of the population.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 05:01:41 PM
Sigh.

4% of a larger population > 7% of a smaller population (not in every case, but apparently in this one)

Take it up with the writer, not me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 05:05:02 PM
The closest rush defense I could find to 93 Arizona was 97 FSU.....they were allowing 40 ypg rushing on about 38 carries.....1.1 ypc. 
But then they played Florida and Fred Taylor ran for 150 yds and 4 TDs, altering FSU's seasonal ypc allowed up to 1.5.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 05:07:34 PM
Sigh.

4% of a larger population > 7% of a smaller population (not in every case, but apparently in this one)

Take it up with the writer, not me.
The quote you cited is not in the Pew Report anywhere.  It's in the one I first referenced which is just a summary thereof.  And it's clearly wrong.

7% > 4%, the percentages are based on  the same total overall figure, all of us.  

And I don't want or need you "salary".  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 07:33:45 PM
From your article:

[img width=500 height=181.998]https://i.imgur.com/2s71Tjw.jpeg[/img]

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on April 20, 2024, 08:40:46 PM
7% > 4%.

The math may be hard for some here.

I'm not talking about the "extremes".
As long as you believe those providing those numbers.As Twain said over 100 yrs ago there are lies,damn lies and statistics
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2024, 08:44:22 PM
The math is pretty simple, and that quote is attributed to Disraeli.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 20, 2024, 09:48:56 PM
Some other all-time great pass defenses (all allowed a sub-85 passer rating)
I don't think most people understand how dominant a great pass D is.  The TD/INT ratio allowed can get insane.

(https://i.imgur.com/r1RUAwQ.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 21, 2024, 06:37:41 AM
How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/)

(https://i.imgur.com/gWP272n.png)
If the term "percent" throws anyone off, think of it this way.

In 1971, there were 61 of 100 folks in the middle, 25 folks lower down, and 14 folks higher up.  Time went by, 20 years in fact, and we see:

50 folks in the middle, 29 lower down which would be an increase from 25, and 21 higher up, which would be a larger increase of 7.

Thus, the middle shrunk, but more of them went higher up than went lower down.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 21, 2024, 07:26:15 AM
Everyone with quarterly share-holder meetings does. 
I don't know where to start with you. Really.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 21, 2024, 09:10:53 PM
I don't know where to start with you. Really.
Everyone requiring perpetual growth, how's that?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 22, 2024, 09:47:56 AM
Everyone requiring perpetual growth, how's that?
You realize that this "Wall Street requires perpetual growth" myth is, well, a myth, right? 

A huge portion of large public companies (~75% of the Fortune 500) pay a dividend. Which, to a large extent, means that investors in those companies expect the company to pay out a large portion of their quarterly profits directly to shareholders, rather than constantly reinvesting in growth. 

For those companies, the Street doesn't care ALL that much about growth much. They care about earnings (profit). Now, contraction can reduce earnings and growth can sometimes increase earnings, so growth may be good. But growth at the expense of earnings, i.e. buying market share through reducing prices, is bad. 

Think about it. If you buy shares of Coca-Cola (KO), do you expect them to grow revenues 20% every year? They already DOMINATE the market share for the categories they play in. They simply can't perpetually grow. Their stock price has hovered between $50 and $60 for the last 5 years. There's no "buy low / sell high" in there. So why buy KO? For predictable income--their annual dividend yield is ~3% so just by parking your money in KO you're getting a very predictable and safe 3% annual ROI. Because while they're not likely to grow much, they're also not likely to go out of business or stop making money. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2024, 09:50:03 AM
OAM delights in faulty hyperbolic over generalizations.  I presume he knows better.  Maybe.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2024, 10:01:22 AM
Ha!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2024, 10:03:52 AM
I think the average knowledge of the stock markets and investments in general may be pretty low, and often wrong.  I have some knowedge and experience, but I don't by any means claim to be an expert.

The most expensive stock is BRK-A which pays no dividend, one share costs over $600,000.  There is a reason for that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2024, 10:12:17 AM
I think the average knowledge of the stock markets and investments in general may be pretty low, and often wrong.  I have some knowedge and experience, but I don't by any means claim to be an expert.

The most expensive stock is BRK-A which pays no dividend, one share costs over $600,000.  There is a reason for that.
Well, yeah.

(https://i.imgur.com/6RWeEWy.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2024, 10:19:44 AM
There is a reason it doesn't pay a dividend, when it clearly could.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2024, 10:32:19 AM
Re-investment is not a bad thing for a company like Berkshire.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 22, 2024, 10:33:34 AM
I think the average knowledge of the stock markets and investments in general may be pretty low, and often wrong.  I have some knowedge and experience, but I don't by any means claim to be an expert.
Yeah, I'm by no means an expert. But this has been a frequent topic of conversation as my son is 16 and he's got some interest in it, and my 11 yo daughter is copying his interest as well. 

At the start the biggest thing was (and maybe still is with the 11 yo) getting them to understand that popular companies aren't always good stocks to own. (Sometimes they are, of course). But just Saturday we were in the car talking about it and my daughter was saying "Starbucks is probably a pretty good stock, they're everywhere". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's not how you determine it. In the past they've brought up Disney, b/c obviously being kids, they're in the age (or used to be for the oldest) that they think it's a good company. But (as we all know given some of their issues as a conglomerate) that doesn't mean it's a good stock to own. There's a lot of risk regarding their future business plans. Tesla is another that my son brought up because he thinks the cars (absent the Cybertruck lol) are cool. But the company is valued as a tech company (high PE ratio), not an automaker (low PE, moderately decent dividend yield), and at some point that's going to be a problem for investors reconciling that IMHO. 

With every stock, you need to assess the state of the business it represents. You have to understand how they make money. You have to understand how you expect to make any return (share price appreciation, dividend, maybe both). And that includes obviously predicting things like growth/contraction, market share growth/contraction, what the other companies in the sector are doing, etc. 

Or you could just assume that everyone expects every stock must have perpetual growth and that capitalism, based on your lack of understanding, is fundamentally flawed as a result. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2024, 10:38:44 AM
I'm not an expert at all, which is why I pay one.

We're pretty heavy into tech and healthcare right now. Those are by far our top positions.

We will settle down a bit when I retire, into more conservative positions. 

Right now, the goal is to beat the S&P, which is happening, so we're pleased with our guy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2024, 11:06:46 AM
When I was younger, I figured all I needed to do was read up on this stock market thing.  And in truth, a couple books were very helpful, but they were not "get rick quick" kinds of things.  I watched "Wall Street Week" almost every Friday on PBS and noted how their "experts" disagreed with each other, drastically.  The host made fun of them.

Then a group at work and I went together to purchase "The Value Line", which was quite expensive.  After two years, hardly anyone but me read it at all.  It was in my office.  I don't know why they were chipping in.  I could get it at the library for free anyway.  VL is, or was, OK I think, and had a lot of information.  But you won't get rich with them either.

One item I got from John Templeton was to pay attention when shopping or doing personal business, which operations out there are doing a good job, or appear to be.  There aren't many of them in my experience.  But think about investing in them, it's a sign, usually, of good management.  I bought Costco for this reason a few years back even though they are trading at a premium.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 22, 2024, 11:21:17 AM
Re-investment is not a bad thing for a company like Berkshire.
Berkshire is a superb example of a perpetual growth company. And given how their business works, that's not a bad thing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2024, 11:25:38 AM
Berkshare caters to the truly wealthy who don't need taxable income, they don't want taxable income.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2024, 11:29:12 AM
I do not own any of that stock.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on April 22, 2024, 04:56:37 PM
I also don't believe people realize the stock market is puny compared to the fixed income/bond market.

There are also way more managed/registered funds (mutual funds and etfs) than there are individual stocks in the marketplace. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 22, 2024, 11:29:47 PM
You realize that this "Wall Street requires perpetual growth" myth is, well, a myth, right?

A huge portion of large public companies (~75% of the Fortune 500) pay a dividend. Which, to a large extent, means that investors in those companies expect the company to pay out a large portion of their quarterly profits directly to shareholders, rather than constantly reinvesting in growth.

For those companies, the Street doesn't care ALL that much about growth much. They care about earnings (profit). Now, contraction can reduce earnings and growth can sometimes increase earnings, so growth may be good. But growth at the expense of earnings, i.e. buying market share through reducing prices, is bad.

Think about it. If you buy shares of Coca-Cola (KO), do you expect them to grow revenues 20% every year? They already DOMINATE the market share for the categories they play in. They simply can't perpetually grow. Their stock price has hovered between $50 and $60 for the last 5 years. There's no "buy low / sell high" in there. So why buy KO? For predictable income--their annual dividend yield is ~3% so just by parking your money in KO you're getting a very predictable and safe 3% annual ROI. Because while they're not likely to grow much, they're also not likely to go out of business or stop making money.
I understand this, but does Coca-Cola not have quarterly predicted earnings and/or marginally-increased or maintained (depending on the financial environment) market share they need/want to meet/exceed?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 22, 2024, 11:31:32 PM
The over-arching idea being that these entities are runaway locomotives that can't ever stop being runaway locomotives.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 07:36:52 AM
The companies like Coke do prefer to have rising earnings.  Whether they look like some runaray freight train or not is subjective.  Bear in mind, the figures are not adjusted for inflation.

(https://i.imgur.com/RM4Nmab.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 07:43:42 AM
I worked for a company of similar ilk (used to be called "widows and orphans companies").  The objective was a steady increase in sales and earnings, it didn't always happen of course.  And these companies are quite different from say an Invidia.

There are other companies, utilities for example, and insurance and bank companies, that tend to have pretty steady earnings (after inflation) and view that as OK.

And there are of course risky companies that want to post earnings increases of 20% or more.  They usually get high valuations (like price earnings ratios) and are considered to be "risky".  When they miss, they get hit hard, and they do miss.  And of course, in time, even very large companies can recede and disappear.  The list of companies on the Dow 30 even 50 years ago is fascinating, many of the companies listed are gone, and few remain on the list.  Actually, I only spot one company that remains.

August 9, 1976[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average&action=edit&section=24)]

Allied Chemical CorporationExxon Corporation †
(formerly Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey)
Owens-Illinois, Inc.
Aluminum Company of AmericaGeneral Electric CompanyThe Procter & Gamble Company
American Can CompanyGeneral Foods CorporationSears Roebuck & Company
American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyGeneral Motors CorporationStandard Oil Co. of California
American Tobacco Company (B shares)Goodyear Tire and Rubber CompanyTexaco Incorporated
Bethlehem Steel CorporationInco Limited †
(formerly International Nickel Company, Ltd. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_Inco#Pre-Vale_history))
Union Carbide Corporation
Chrysler CorporationInternational Harvester CompanyUnited States Steel Corporation
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & CompanyInternational Paper CompanyUnited Technologies Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Technologies_Corporation) †
(formerly United Aircraft Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_Corporation))
Eastman Kodak CompanyJohns-Manville CorporationWestinghouse Electric Corporation
Esmark Corporation †
(formerly Swift & Company)
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M) ↑F. W. Woolworth Company

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 07:54:14 AM
Kodak, heh.

3M and P&G still listed. I think they are the only 2.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 07:57:58 AM
Yeah, I thought 3M had been dropped, but they remain, 2 out of 30.  Many of the rest are MUCH smaller companies or were bought out or disappeared.

GE of course recently finalized their split into several operations.  They have done pretty well over the past year or so.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 08:01:52 AM
Here's earnings for PG, again not adjusted for inflation:

(https://i.imgur.com/TI873he.png)

Not bad, not what I'd term some runaway locomotive.  I divested all I had once I retired.  

Here is my own power provider:

(https://i.imgur.com/Bb1sgXS.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 08:10:46 AM
The companies like Coke do prefer to have rising earnings.  Whether they look like some runaray freight train or not is subjective.  Bear in mind, the figures are not adjusted for inflation.

(https://i.imgur.com/RM4Nmab.png)
Coke owns a lot of things other than Coke too. They do reinvest, to diversify their portfolio.


Brands (coca-colacompany.com) (https://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 08:42:32 AM
Pepsi turned itself into a snack company.  Most of their products aren't good for you.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 08:45:47 AM
It's interesting to me how often I see some post on FB denigrating "capitalism", or what they think that means, and the stock market, which I'd opine without exception they don't understand and think stocks are a think only for the wealthy.

And folks view coutries like Sweden as being ones to emulate, because they are "socialist", which they decidedly are not.  Most liberals admire how Europe does stuff without knowing how Europe really does stuff.  And I personally think Europe does some things better than we do, a few anyway.  But the US isn't going to adopt those things.  "Progressives" would have us adopt the things that Europe really doesn't do, or barely does.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 08:48:22 AM
"Progressives" need to move to Europe. They will find out they are not wanted in most places.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 08:48:55 AM
Pepsi turned itself into a snack company.  Most of their products aren't good for you.
Not good, but not terrible. They have some decent holdings.

Our Products (pepsico.com) (https://www.pepsico.com/our-brands/creating-smiles/our-products)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:00:43 AM
"Progressives" need to move to Europe. They will find out they are not wanted in most places.
Our "progressive friends" were literally shocked when my wife stated, on being asked, she had no interested in living in France.  Oddly enough, none of them ever asked why.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 23, 2024, 09:02:52 AM
Kodak, heh.

3M and P&G still listed. I think they are the only 2.
AT&T
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:06:47 AM
Dow 30 Chart

[th]SYMBOL [/th]
[th]NAME [/th]
[th]PRICE [/th]
[th]CHANGE [/th]
[th]%CHANGE [/th]
[th]LOW [/th]
[th]HIGH [/th]
[th]PREVIOUS CLOSE [/th]
AMZN (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/AMZN)Amazon.com Inc177.23+2.6+1.4900177.23
AXP (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/AXP)American Express Co233+1.96+0.8500233
AMGN (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/AMGN)Amgen Inc271.91+2.98+1.1100271.91
AAPL (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/AAPL)Apple Inc165.84+0.84+0.5100165.84
BA (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/BA)Boeing Co170.48+0.66+0.3900170.48
CAT (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/CAT)Caterpillar Inc357.61+2.95+0.8300357.61
CSCO (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/CSCO)Cisco Systems Inc48.14-0.18-0.370048.14
CVX (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/CVX)Chevron Corp161.92+1.92+1.200161.92
GS (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/GS)Goldman Sachs Group Inc417.35+13.35+3.300417.35
HD (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/HD)Home Depot Inc336.11+0.75+0.2200336.11
HON (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/HON)Honeywell International Inc195.58+1.32+0.6800195.58
IBM (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/IBM)International Business Machines Corp181.9+0.32+0.1800181.9
INTC (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/INTC)Intel Corp34.41+0.21+0.610034.41
JNJ (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/JNJ)Johnson & Johnson149.12+1.21+0.8200149.12
KO (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/KO)Coca-Cola Co60.55+0.38+0.630060.55
JPM (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/JPM)JPMorgan Chase & Co189.41+3.61+1.9400189.41
MCD (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/MCD)McDonald’s Corp275.58+3.59+1.3200275.58
MMM (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/MMM)3M Co92.62+0.35+0.380092.62
MRK (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/MRK)Merck & Co Inc126.94+1.16+0.9200126.94
MSFT (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/MSFT)Microsoft Corp400.96+1.84+0.4600400.96
NKE (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/NKE)Nike Inc94.19-0.34-0.360094.19
PG (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/PG)Procter & Gamble Co160.54+2.4+1.5200160.54
TRV (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/TRV)Travelers Companies Inc214.27+0.2+0.0900214.27
UNH (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/UNH)UnitedHealth Group Inc491.23-9.9-1.9800491.23
CRM (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/CRM)Salesforce Inc273.81+3.44+1.2700273.81
VZ (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/VZ)Verizon Communications Inc38.6-1.89-4.670038.6
V (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/V)Visa Inc272.33+2.55+0.9500272.33
WMT (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/WMT)Walmart Inc60.14+0.61+1.020060.14
DIS (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/DIS)Walt Disney Co111.99-0.62-0.5500111.99
DOW (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/DOW)Dow Inc56.99+0.33UNCH0056.99



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:07:37 AM
 AT&T was kicked out in 2004 only to return the following year when it merged with SBC Communications. Created in 1896, the Dow is one of the oldest gauges of a stock wealth. When it was created, Grover Cleveland was U.S. president. Companies like the Pacific Mail Steamship were counted among its ranks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 23, 2024, 09:08:26 AM
sorry, saw the old chart and just figured AT&T was still a player

apparently Verizon is the big telecom company today
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:09:35 AM
7 Dow Stocks That Didn't Survive the Decade | Kiplinger (https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/t052-s001-7-dow-stocks-that-didn-t-survive-the-decade/index.html)

This was the 2010-2019 decade, seven members dropped out (including AT&T).  So, nearly a quarter faded in a decade.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:10:31 AM
So, it's clear a lot of companies don't keep growing and prospering like some runaway freight train.  It would be easier if they did.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 10:02:24 AM
2024 NFL Draft: College football programs with most first round picks ever (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/2024-nfl-draft-college-football-programs-with-most-first-round-picks-ever-230812471/#2411153)

Not surprising to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 10:13:50 AM
So, it's clear a lot of companies don't keep growing and prospering like some runaway freight train.  It would be easier if they did.


Don't let facts and truth get in the way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 23, 2024, 10:16:02 AM
I understand this, but does Coca-Cola not have quarterly predicted earnings and/or marginally-increased or maintained (depending on the financial environment) market share they need/want to meet/exceed?
Yes, like any corporation they're tracking various business targets that they want to meet or exceed. They're a global company so I'm sure they're looking at markets where they're not doing as well as others, and trying to grow. They're looking at stable markets and trying to defend share and profitability. They're looking at emerging threats from different categories (as Badge points out, they diversify their brands for this reason) to ensure they don't shrink. 

Business is really hard, because the instant you leave any opening, a competitor will fill it. 

But it's certainly not this:

The over-arching idea being that these entities are runaway locomotives that can't ever stop being runaway locomotives. 

The hyperbole of this statement suggests that a runaway locomotive's inevitable end is a fiery crash. The Coca-Cola Company was founded in 1892. 

It's a freight train, to be sure, but it's not a runaway. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 10:17:30 AM
And clearly those that seem like "runaway freight trains" do stop being that at some point.  The entire premise is puerile.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 11:42:18 AM
I find a lot of folks, including highly educated folks, have no interest in investments.  They think it's "too hard" off the top of their heads, and just ignore it.  Some end up paying scalliwags to do it for them (I don't mean badgerfan in this).  Paying someone to manage your finances is fine, they should be "fiduciaries" who don't charge based on how many transactions they do in a year. Quite a few do that.

My ex mother in law had inherited a fairly large estate and had a local bank managing her funds, she asked me to look over her portolio, holy cow, it was a mess.

Anyway, I think it quite useful to learn at least some basics.  Obviously it starts, I think, with understanding credit cards and loans, student or otherwise.  The level of CC debt in the US is astounding, to me.  I've heard folks claim they go a raise but less take home pay because they moved into another tax bracket, which of course is impossible for that reason.  Then of course some folks just revile the "stock market" for being evil, or something, a play ground for the wealthy, which kind of ensures they won't even be that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2024, 11:50:21 AM
Mine is a Fiduciary. Wouldn't have it any other way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 11:51:42 AM
I figured as much.  Mine was as well.  I asked my "guy" what percentage of local money managers were, um, ethical, and he said "Maybe ten percent."

I enjoy doing it myself now.  I learned a lot from watching what they did and asking questions.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on April 23, 2024, 02:29:38 PM
advantage of having a spouse in the investment game (well she is retired now) she handles all the investments and has done quite well for us.  Definitely a fiduciary because she and I both want to stay retired.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 23, 2024, 06:02:14 PM
Yes, like any corporation they're tracking various business targets that they want to meet or exceed. They're a global company so I'm sure they're looking at markets where they're not doing as well as others, and trying to grow. They're looking at stable markets and trying to defend share and profitability. They're looking at emerging threats from different categories (as Badge points out, they diversify their brands for this reason) to ensure they don't shrink.

Business is really hard, because the instant you leave any opening, a competitor will fill it.

But it's certainly not this:

The hyperbole of this statement suggests that a runaway locomotive's inevitable end is a fiery crash. The Coca-Cola Company was founded in 1892.

It's a freight train, to be sure, but it's not a runaway.
Okay.  I didn't intend for the "runaway train" concept to include a fiery crash.  Just the opposite.  It's going to behave in a way to ensure perpetual forward movement.......they can't stop fuelling the train with coal, they can't fuel it with less coal, etc.  

Or maybe it's a trapeez artist on a tight rope that can never stop walking on the tight rope.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 23, 2024, 06:05:12 PM
So, it's clear a lot of companies don't keep growing and prospering like some runaway freight train.  It would be easier if they did.


I already cleared up the perpetual prospering in an earlier post.  The point is that these companies have to meet their checkpoints of growth or maintenance or market share or or or......or the sky falls.  Or they think it will and so then it does.  

Coca-Cola knows soda isn't a forever thing.  So what do they do?  Diversify into other drink options while buying up the good ones and bullying the smaller good ones so they can't get any shelf space in stores.  

They do what they have to to perpetually do what it is they need to perpetually do.  And that is what I meant in the first place.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 06:05:44 PM
Your attempt at an analogy is just weird. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 23, 2024, 06:11:28 PM
You read everything I type with skewed glasses.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 07:02:52 PM
I read it while laughing at the nonsense. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 23, 2024, 07:39:50 PM
Okay.  I didn't intend for the "runaway train" concept to include a fiery crash.  Just the opposite.  It's going to behave in a way to ensure perpetual forward movement.......they can't stop fuelling the train with coal, they can't fuel it with less coal, etc. 

Or maybe it's a trapeez artist on a tight rope that can never stop walking on the tight rope. 
Yeah, if a company stops performing, they stop being a company. See the points above us, talking about the companies that "used to be" in the DJIA. 

The moment you stop satisfying customers, somebody else will. 

Just like you have to keep breathing. You can't stop. You can't breathe less. You have to perpetually keep breathing. I'm not going to criticize you for your need to perpetually breathe. 

Coca-Cola knows soda isn't a forever thing.  So what do they do?  Diversify into other drink options while buying up the good ones and bullying the smaller good ones so they can't get any shelf space in stores. 
They adapt. They also introduce new soda products like Coca-Cola Zero Sugar. They realize that consumer tastes change, and they can't just keep shoveling the old product down our throats. Or we'll stop buying and then they go away. 

Remember that the way that all of these companies got to be the size they are? By creating a product that people will willingly buy from them. It's a bilateral transaction. Supply AND demand. 

Take out more "coercive" markets like health care (pay up or die) or gasoline (pay up or you can't go to work and you make no money and starve). This is a consumer product. Coca-Cola exists because they've spent over a century offering products that customers WANT to buy. They're not some rapacious robber baron exploiting a monopoly supplying a critically necessary good. It's freakin' soda. 

This is the free market. Adapt or die. And that's exactly as it should be. If you can't satisfy customers better than others, you shouldn't survive. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 23, 2024, 08:46:29 PM
Coca-Cola couldn't just gradually recede into 3rd place among sodas and continue on.  They'd be bought out by one of the others.  Stockholders would shit themselves and sell sell sell, turning the problem into a snowball rolling down a mountain.

As Cincy laughs, no one has posted anything here I didn't already know.  I appreciate the time taken of the posts, but I read it and just think "yeah."  

I simply foolishly imagine Coca-Cola-esque companies should be able to go from $260 billion worth to $200 billion worth and have it be perfectly okay.  Only $200 billion.  It's fine, we'll rebound - you know, confidence in the damn thing.
But if that happened (I assume it hasn't), the company would collapse (again, I assume).  Thus the tightrope analogy.  

Bubbly candy water.  
Must.  Keep.  Going.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2024, 09:19:14 PM
Whatever point you are trying to make is absurd. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 23, 2024, 09:27:37 PM

I simply foolishly imagine Coca-Cola-esque companies should be able to go from $260 billion worth to $200 billion worth and have it be perfectly okay.  Only $200 billion.  It's fine, we'll rebound - you know, confidence in the damn thing.
But if that happened (I assume it hasn't), the company would collapse (again, I assume).  Thus the tightrope analogy. 
A year ago, KO had a market cap off 277B. Then it dropped over a number of months to 221B. A 20% drop. It didn't collapse. 

What's your point again?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 24, 2024, 12:48:38 AM
There's a point at which the shit would hit the fan, yes?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 07:35:38 AM
There's a point at which the shit would hit the fan, yes?
Since you knew everything anybody has posted here on the topic, you should know the kinds of things that happen when some company starts to deteriorate.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 07:56:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ysMGwPQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 24, 2024, 08:18:31 AM
Must border Canada, unless you're Wisconsin!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 08:59:40 AM
Interesting brief article about the "Nifty Fifty" from back in the day (1970s stocks).  These were presented as "can't miss" kinds of things that garnered high valuations and were said to be great investments (by some).  I recall another old expression, "Trees don't grow to the sky.".

The Nifty-Fifty Re-Revisited (pomona.edu) (https://economics-files.pomona.edu/garysmith/papers/Nifty50/Nifty50.html)

The basic elements of the Nifty Fifty story are sound: with the spectacular exception of Wal-Mart, the glamour stocks that were often pushed to relatively high P/E ratios in the early 1970s did substantially worse than the market, in both the short and long run.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 09:14:12 AM
valuing-growth-stocks-revisiting-the-nifty-fifty.pdf (csinvesting.org) (http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/valuing-growth-stocks-revisiting-the-nifty-fifty.pdf)

The Nifty Fifty were a group of premier growth stocks, such as Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, and Coca-Cola, that became institutional darlings in the early 1970s. All of these stocks had proven growth records, continual increases in dividends (virtually none had cut its dividend since World War II), and high market capitalization. This last characteristic enabled institutions to load up on these stocks without significantly influencing the price of their shares. The Nifty Fifty were often called one-decision stocks: buy and never sell. Because their prospects were so bright, many analysts claimed that the only direction they could go was up. Since they had made so many rich, few if any investors could fault a money manager for buying them. At the time, many investors did not seem to find 50, 80 or even 100 times earnings at all an unreasonable price to pay for the world’s preeminent growth companies. Forbes magazine retrospectively commented on the phenomenon as follows: “What held the Nifty Fifty up? The same thing that held up tulip-bulb prices in long-ago Holland—popular delusions and the madness of crowds. The delusion was that these companies were so good it didn’t matter what you paid for them; their inexorable growth would bail you out. “Obviously the problem was not with the companies but with the tempo rary insanity of institutional money managers—proving again that stupidity well-packaged can sound like wisdom. It was so easy to forget that probably no sizable company could possibly be worth over 50 times normal earnings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 09:26:25 AM
Stray Reflections (stray-reflections.com) (https://stray-reflections.com/article/252/Revisiting_the_Nifty_Fifty)

The Dow shot up 16 percent from the October low, but then retested it again in December to mark its final bottom. The bear market of 1973—74 was over, 21 months after it began. The 45 percent decline was the worst ever since the Great Depression. 

“The Nifty Fifty were taken out and shot one by one,” wrote a Forbes columnist. From their respective highs, Coca-Cola fell 69 percent, Xerox 71 percent, McDonald’s 72 percent, Avon 86 percent, Disney 87 percent and Polaroid 91 percent.  
From 1973 to 1977, the Nifty Fifty stocks underperformed the market, with five-year average returns of negative 4.4 percent annually compared to the market’s positive 2.5 percent. The Dow’s January 1973 high would not be surpassed for another nine years, in November of 1982.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 09:29:24 AM
Are The Magnificent Seven In A Bubble? Ask The Nifty Fifty | ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/are-magnificent-seven-bubble-ask-nifty-fifty)

 While we can quarrel with his analysis, the point is high valuations are not necessarily a warning. In fact, as we share with Philip Morris, a high valuation for a stock may not be high enough. The important question is, can a stock live up to the earnings growth implied by its valuation?
The market may be underestimating the growth potential for some of the Magnificent Seven stocks and overestimating it for others. But, Siegel states, the most significant risk in the short term may not be growth potential but confidence. Confidence can fade just as quickly as it was born.
We leave you with a quote from Benjamin Graham:
Quote
In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.”

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 24, 2024, 10:00:03 AM
Lower-Income Americans are Taxed Much Less Heavily Than Lower-Income Europeans - Econlib (https://www.econlib.org/lower-income-americans-are-taxed-much-less-heavily-than-lower-income-europeans/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 24, 2024, 10:08:57 AM
Where does this running back room rank with the best of all-time?

Gordon, Ball, White.

(https://i.imgur.com/DEoeY0o.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 24, 2024, 10:14:11 AM
1982 - Roger Craig, Mike Rozier, Tom Rathman
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 24, 2024, 10:16:32 AM
That's a good room too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 24, 2024, 10:22:38 AM
There's a point at which the shit would hit the fan, yes?
I've been at the same company for over 16 years. I've seen our stock price in the teens and I've seen it in the 115 range. We are in a bit of a cyclical industry. 

When the stock price is low, there are usually reasons why it's low. Some of them are cyclicality of our business, some of them are competitive missteps, etc. And the reasons why it's low (i.e. poor earnings or even losing money) bring pain. I.e. the "people I used to work with were told they no longer work with" pain of layoffs. I've had the difficult task of giving people that news myself, and if you think anyone in a company delights in layoffs, you're wrong. We spent the latter part of 2022 and all of 2023 in one of those painful periods--people say it's the most protracted downturn our industry has seen since 1986. Quite severe measures were taken to cut costs, because the company was losing money. Thankfully we're pulling out of that now. 

When the stock price is high, it's usually because cyclical business conditions are good and/or we've been executing well. Earnings are high. Those earnings fund raises / variable incentive payouts / benefits that lead to company morale being very high. 

In 2012, my boss who had been with the company ~40 years was retiring. He told me "I've seen this company almost go out of business four times. This might be the fifth." At the time we were in the middle of an expensive acquisition/merger with a competitor right at the time that a natural disaster hit the country where we do the bulk of our production. We literally had a factory under water. Or at least head-height on the first floor. I've been to the facility and they now have a plaque on the outside wall showing how high the floodwaters reached. Of our entire group, I was the only one who would have been able to stand up and keep my mouth above water. Luckily we survived (helped, in fact, by that flood--it disrupted the supply chain of multiple players in the industry, leading to shortages, leading to high prices). 

But not everyone has been so lucky. My industry used to have 100 companies building what we do. Today there are three, globally. Business is hard. 

As it relates to a company like KO, I obviously think there's a point where the shit hits the fan. As far as "existential crisis / go out of business", I think you have to look at a company like that and ask the odds of whether they'll be around at various points in the future. There could be a lot of reasons. Bad management is just one. Consumer preferences changing and KO being unable to adapt is another. The company having a major scandal that destroys the (very valuable) brand is another. A combination of those could knock them out all at once. But you think about it in the terms of timeframe. 20 years from now? I'd put money on KO existing. 50 years? IMHO certainly better than even odds. 100 years? Now we're not so sure, because so many consumer preferences could change in the interim and plenty of opportunities for management to screw up / damage the brand / etc to slowly deteriorate and have died by then. 

But none of these are caused by some sort of "perpetual growth" myth that everyone needs to hit. That's where your insistence was a fallacy. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 24, 2024, 10:02:28 PM
Must border Canada, unless you're Wisconsin!!
Do the great lakes borders count?

(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f448e80fac7304d11a7ba3ff3449a11a-pjlq)

 

In Ohio I had an argument with a coworker about that. I said we bordered Canada. He said it didn't count unless you could drive across it. He maintained his position even after I pointed out that you can ferry your car across the border. 

(https://www.toledoblade.com/image/2005/05/22/1140x_a10-7_cTC/Getting-to-the-Lake-Erie-islands.gif)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 25, 2024, 06:28:29 AM
Do the great lakes borders count?

(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f448e80fac7304d11a7ba3ff3449a11a-pjlq)

 
Yes, and Wisconsin does not share one with Canada. It shares Lake Superior borders with Michigan and Minnesota. Ohio and PA share a Canadien border but are not included.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on April 25, 2024, 06:45:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ysMGwPQ.png)
According to who?People who manufacture snow plows? Or have Christmas Tree Farms?Own Ski Resorts?Salt Mines?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 25, 2024, 07:57:24 AM
The northernmost, obviously. Though some of those lower New England states got excluded, even though they don't extend as far south as some of the others. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 08:12:17 AM
Where does this running back room rank with the best of all-time?

Gordon, Ball, White.

(https://i.imgur.com/DEoeY0o.jpeg)
1982 - Roger Craig, Mike Rozier, Tom Rathman

1996 - Ricky Williams and Priest Holmes together was pretty great.  There really was no third in that group, though.  Shon Mitchell was a fast scat back kind of guy but wasn't ever going to set any records.

Of course,  as far as duos go, Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas were pretty impressive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 25, 2024, 08:22:34 AM
Yep, lots of great duos for sure. But having three like that? It's unfair.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2024, 08:48:46 AM
The best trio I can recall at UGA would be, probably, Chubb/Michel/Gurley, but the first two were freshmen at the time.  The best duo would be Chubb/Gurley, and they had D'Andre Swift with Chubb and Michel when they were seniors.  Another duo of note would be Sinkwich and Trippi.  It would have been rare until fairly recently to have three who got significant playing time, and today probably one or two would "portal".

I found these two trios mentioned on line:

1978 Auburn-Joe Cribbs, James Brooks, William Andrews-incredible

1996 Texas-Ricky Williams, Priest Holmes, Shon Mitchell. Mitchell is the fastest guy I have ever seen. Think of Ron Leflore with shoulder pads.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 09:35:55 AM
Shon Mitchell NFL Combine Stats ; Hand Size: 9.63 inches ; Wingspan: (N/A) inches ; Birthdate: (N/A) ; 40 Yard Dash: 4.62 seconds ; 40 Yard (MPH):, 17.71 (MPH)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2024, 09:38:04 AM
NFL performance is the only way to assess this.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 09:40:02 AM
1996 Texas-Ricky Williams, Priest Holmes, Shon Mitchell. Mitchell is the fastest guy I have ever seen. Think of Ron Leflore with shoulder pads.
agreed, but I was addressing this claim
apparently, this dude didn't spend much time watching sports
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 09:43:39 AM
I think everyone here should be smart enough to understand there's a difference between track speed and football speed.  Shon Mitchell was very fast with a football in his hands, but like I said he was never going to break any rushing records.  He was a good alternate back though.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2024, 09:50:12 AM
My guess is some players may LOOK fast on the field to the casual observer while having a 40 time of 4.67.

Nick Chubb didn't look fast unless he broke away and was being chased by some safety, then he looked pretty fast.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 09:53:03 AM
My guess is some players may LOOK fast on the field to the casual observer while having a 40 time of 4.67.

Nick Chubb didn't look fast unless he broke away and was being chased by some safety, then he looked pretty fast. 
Maybe but from my own observations, many players that have "football speed" that doesn't necessarily show up in the 40 times, tend to be more dynamic runners that can change speed and direction more quickly then their counterparts.  They also tend to have better than average field vision and can plan their routes and make their cuts before defenders crash the lanes, so they appear fast by comparison.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2024, 09:58:07 AM
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to, a player who looks fast on the field with a slow 40 time.  I once thought Barry had a slow 40 time, someone here corrected me.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 10:00:40 AM
I think everyone here should be smart enough to understand there's a difference between track speed and football speed.  Shon Mitchell was very fast with a football in his hands, but like I said he was never going to break any rushing records.  He was a good alternate back though. 
I can understand this statement

"the fastest guy I have ever seen"
cannot understand this statement
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 25, 2024, 10:18:38 AM
My guess is some players may LOOK fast on the field to the casual observer while having a 40 time of 4.67.

Nick Chubb didn't look fast unless he broke away and was being chased by some safety, then he looked pretty fast. 
Calvin Johnson was always that guy to me. Long loping stride and looked like he was jogging. But nobody could catch him from behind.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 10:28:28 AM
I can understand this statement

"the fastest guy I have ever seen"
cannot understand this statement
Add the implied "on the football field" or "with a football in his hands" and I don't see the issue.  Sounds more like you're just trying to kick up some controversy where there really is none.

(https://i.imgur.com/MqXCZpb.jpeg)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 10:30:01 AM
On the flipside, apparently Ricky Williams ran a 4.56 at the combine, even at 20 lbs overweight.  So maybe Shon Mitchell was just a slow poke with a good PR department.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 10:31:57 AM
Add the implied "on the football field" or "with a football in his hands" and I don't see the issue.  Sounds more like you're just trying to kick up some controversy where there really is none.



I stated I don't have an issue with the added implied
the other dude didn't add it, therefore I didn't think it was implied

there's the controversy

"the fastest guy I have ever seen"
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 10:33:02 AM
I remember Burny referring to Shon as a "tanglefooted dwarf"
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 10:54:19 AM


there's the controversy

"the fastest guy I have ever seen"
(https://i.imgur.com/Q9QF5Rq.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 10:55:22 AM
I remember Burny referring to Shon as a "tanglefooted dwarf"
It wasn't Shon, it was a few years later, somewhere around '99 I believe. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2024, 11:31:19 AM
It wasn't Shon, it was a few years later, somewhere around '99 I believe.
I just remembered!  It was Hodges Mitchell, a RB at Texas from 1997-2000.  He was 5'6" 180 lbs and Mack Brown always tried to use him like a 6' 220 lb bruiser.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2024, 11:50:35 AM

ah yes

my memory is legendary
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 25, 2024, 08:20:31 PM
Calvin Johnson was always that guy to me. Long loping stride and looked like he was jogging. But nobody could catch him from behind.


Terrelle Pryor


(https://media.balls.ie/uploads/2013/10/Terrelle-Pryor-93yd-rush.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 25, 2024, 09:27:09 PM

Terrelle Pryor


(https://media.balls.ie/uploads/2013/10/Terrelle-Pryor-93yd-rush.gif)
He was pretty good until Ryan Kerrigan killed him. 

#neverforget #purdueharbor 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 26, 2024, 08:10:30 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4uytnFf.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 26, 2024, 08:49:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/mmfTJaC.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 26, 2024, 09:38:05 AM
Look at all those useless yankee states hating on the Cowboys.  I love it!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 26, 2024, 10:18:12 AM
You first have to be something to be hated.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 26, 2024, 10:21:13 AM
Speaking of "rankings" ....

Biden approval rating mired at historic low: Gallup | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4623548-biden-approval-rating-average-historic-low-gallup/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 26, 2024, 10:44:12 AM
Look at all those useless yankee states hating on the Cowboys.  I love it!
That's gonna happen when you put a team from Texas in the NFC East.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 26, 2024, 12:32:38 PM
3 Atlanta hotels awarded top honors on Michelin Key Guide for US – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/3-atlanta-hotels-awarded-top-honors-michelin-key-guide-us/KSVF4NUD2BDQ7OTKYJR5JR2DLA/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2jrmdhAJB7lXT848tX_zxrmZW7QimkdMIosTudz2LzNFWUv1QhyKgtoVk_aem_AZmh-qnsa9zeT1Zci5Ud-aTKr7IbcI48SiFXSc7LGJDofcx_ALPq5YruLSTLJ86sGOB9oTg5JM5qU88KBcSQnoLO)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 26, 2024, 04:04:23 PM
America's Finest Hot Dog Stands (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/america-s-finest-hot-dog-stands/ss-AA1dYyvh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=526ccd20b7db444bcafcac5cbd8f300c&ei=25)

Gene and Jude's in river Grove, IL is my favorite.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 27, 2024, 08:50:41 PM
I was today years old when I realized Purdue had the Heisman runner-up 3 out of 4 years:  
66 Griese
68 Keyes
69 Phipps

Hmmph.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 30, 2024, 08:47:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/1YAgUwN.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 04, 2024, 01:19:58 PM
https://www.exploredluxury.com/lifestyle/some-people-consider-these-to-be-the-most-overrated-tourist-attractions-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=fz&utm_campaign=120208477477630475-120208477477960475-fz&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120208477479490475-fz&utm_term=120208477477960475&fbclid=IwAR2J96qn6LvguiEXKfcczIjAtIjYkgjdGqZ8muhYHRKL2ibadq886Yw6H4g_aem_Ab4Cjl0SUZR5HHfV9V5heDTf_BOW2wsJ62rVNuZ4kjZHpIaSkSVOnuFIQLL-Qop3tu2gSq2UNer9yyg3axOBSGGi (https://www.exploredluxury.com/lifestyle/some-people-consider-these-to-be-the-most-overrated-tourist-attractions-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=fz&utm_campaign=120208477477630475-120208477477960475-fz&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120208477479490475-fz&utm_term=120208477477960475&fbclid=IwAR2J96qn6LvguiEXKfcczIjAtIjYkgjdGqZ8muhYHRKL2ibadq886Yw6H4g_aem_Ab4Cjl0SUZR5HHfV9V5heDTf_BOW2wsJ62rVNuZ4kjZHpIaSkSVOnuFIQLL-Qop3tu2gSq2UNer9yyg3axOBSGGi)

You'll Have Trouble Relaxing At The Mall Of America

Epcot Is A Snooze Fest

Roswell, New Mexico Is A Creepy Alien Sanctuary

Philadelphia's Liberty Bell Is Historic, But Boring

The Four Corners Monument Is Basically In The Middle Of Nowhere

The Venetian Gondolas In Las Vegas Are No Italian Paradise

Boston's Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market Aren't Like They Used To Be

Some People Think North Carolina's Shell Service Station Is A Big Let Down

Times Square May Be Too Much To Handle

What To Do Instead Of Visiting The Hollywood Sign

South Dakota's Corn Palace Isn't Worth The Trip For Many

Beale Street In Memphis, Tennessee Has Lost Its Charm

Forget The Alamo

Hall Of Champions Equals Boredom

Georgia's World Of Coca-Cola Lacks Flavor

Kentucky's Ark Encounter And Creation Museum Is Overpriced

The Atlantic City Boardwalk Is A Ghost Town

Is Graceland Worth It?

Chicago's Magnificent Mile Doesn't Live Up To Its Name

Carhenge In Nebraska Isn't Worthy Of Your Bucket List
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 04, 2024, 02:41:43 PM


Kentucky's Ark Encounter And Creation Museum Is Overpriced

Probably the largest collection of misinformation and utter nonsense on the face of the earth.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 04, 2024, 03:07:07 PM
that's a big statement
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 04, 2024, 03:33:25 PM
that's a big statement
Almost half a million cubed cubits!!!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 04, 2024, 06:08:12 PM
Here's kind of a rankings thing - it's definitely interesting in terms of a snapshot.

So I find a video on youtube of gameplay from a 1994 Sega Genesis video game called "College Football's National Championship." 
First of all, I've never heard of it.
Second of all, and interestingly, it has 32 teams.  But which teams they include is weird and/or revealing. 
So remember, it was produced in 1994.
Illinois, ND, UM, OSU, Penn St, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Tennessee, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Miami, FSU, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Houston, Texas, A&M, Arkansas, OU, Nebraska, CU, BYU, Arizona, Cal, Stanford, San Diego St, USC, and UCLA.
.
So we've got some PAC, some B1G, a couple of ACC, half the SEC, a few Big 8, a few SWC......
Kind of a hodge-podge, wouldn't you say?
So it was FSU vs BC, and FSU's QB was #17 and BC's was #13, so that's Ward and Foley.  That means it's 1993 teams, so that makes more sense. 

San Diego State?  Marshall Faulk.
Illinois?  Those LBs?
Wisconsin won the B1G, but maybe they were too johnny-come-lately?

And the menu music is 8-bit renditions of famous fight songs, like ND's and UM's.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 04, 2024, 06:21:59 PM
College Football USA 96 (Genesis) allows you to run plays out of the shotgun, I, veer, wishbone, pro, or T formations, lol.  
Got some smart offensive players to remember all of that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 06, 2024, 11:25:55 AM
Recent studies have revealed that a $150,000 income in certain cities is only enough to qualify as lower middle class.

https://www.newtraderu.com/2024/05/05/a-150k-income-is-lower-middle-class-in-these-high-cost-cities/ (https://www.newtraderu.com/2024/05/05/a-150k-income-is-lower-middle-class-in-these-high-cost-cities/)

The cities where a $150K income is now considered lower middle class are:

San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Arlington, Virginia
Irvine, California
Seattle, Washington
Gilbert, Arizona
Plano, Texas
Scottsdale, Arizona
Washington, DC.
Chandler, Arizona
San Diego, California
Anchorage, Alaska
Oakland, California
Chesapeake, Virginia
Jersey City, New Jersey
The cost of living in these areas is significantly higher than the national average, with housing costs being the primary driver. For example, the median home price in San Francisco is $1.2 million, while in San Jose, it’s $1.1 million. Renting is also expensive, with average monthly rents exceeding $3,000 in many cities.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 06, 2024, 10:12:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E)

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 07:46:49 AM
Chicago's Magnificent Mile Doesn't Live Up To Its Name
It did until 2020.

Now it is half empty and very dangerous.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 08:01:27 AM
I started watching the video and got bored.  How is the US "destroying" the future for young folks?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 07, 2024, 11:02:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NiKN2BD.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 11:08:08 AM
Lazy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 12:11:09 PM
Lazy.
Indeed, but such things get clicks.  I think everyone here mostly ignores them, maybe a quick look to see who is 15-25.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 12:20:26 PM
Why do you say it's lazy?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 12:46:29 PM
Why do you say it's lazy?


It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

USC, Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 12:48:39 PM
My top 10, in no order, would include OSU, Michigan, Bama, Georgia, FSU, Oregon, Clemson, LSU, PSU and Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 12:51:26 PM
It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?


So you disagree with the ones that are new or surprisingly highly ranked, and yet you call it a regurgitation.  That seems contradictory to me.

I've always found Joel Klatt to be fairly thoughtful and 
conscientious in his takes  I can see disagreeing with his rankings, but I don't doubt he put some effort into them.  I don't think they're "lazy" just because I disagree with some of them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 12:54:30 PM
They are all lazy, even if somehow they put a great deal of thought into them in my view.  And "we" are lazy for clicking.

I'm too lazy to provide my own though.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 12:56:51 PM
How are they "lazy" if they're thoughtfully produced?

This is such a weird take.  You can certainly disagree with them, but badgerfan already pointed out several differences from last year's ranking that demonstrate they're not just a complete re-hash from last year.  Some thought went into them, time was spent on them.

Seems pretty lazy to write them off as lazy just because you disagree.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:02:20 PM
I'm too lazy to agree or disagree.  I THINK such rankings are lazy because I really do THINK they put rather little effort into it, because there simply is not enough information to do much more than take last years rankings and adjust them a bit.  This is why they all look largely the same with a few flips.

I can't really imagine putting a ton of effort into such things because they are largely pointless.  Take ten prominent such rankings and the only differences will be subtle in the top ten, with some guessing down the line after that.  AND, nobody really seems to compare rigorously with their predictions and final rankings to assess whether anyone is any better than anyone else.

Use Clucko to do it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 07, 2024, 01:05:50 PM
It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

USC, Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?


mixed in Nebraska instead of Colorado just to jinx the Huskers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:06:58 PM
Does anyone ever examine preseason rankings after the fact, over years, to determine if any source is better or more predictive of the final outcome?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 01:13:27 PM
I'm too lazy to agree or disagree.  I THINK such rankings are lazy because I really do THINK they put rather little effort into it, because there simply is not enough information to do much more than take last years rankings and adjust them a bit.  This is why they all look largely the same with a few flips.

I can't really imagine putting a ton of effort into such things because they are largely pointless.  Take ten prominent such rankings and the only differences will be subtle in the top ten, with some guessing down the line after that.  AND, nobody really seems to compare rigorously with their predictions and final rankings to assess whether anyone is any better than anyone else.

Use Clucko to do it.
I disagree, I'm not sure this is true at all.  I think college football people like Joel Klatt probably geek out over these things.  I think they spend a LOT of time on them.  I know that the people on other message boards I frequent like surlyhorns, where lots of folks publish their own Top 25s, spend a ton of time on them.  Why wouldn't a paid professional do the same, regarding a sport he obviously loves?

I think they look "largely the same" because the teams that finish in the Top 25 look largely the same every year.  Last year 17 out of 25 pre-season AP Top 25 finished in the final AP Top 25.  That's almost 70%.

I'm sure they don't spend a lot of time thinking about who definitely won't make it.  We all know that, say, Vanderbilt isn't going to finish in the top 25.  And tons of other schools in the same boat.

And they probably don't spend a lot of time on the top 5-10 either.  We all know Ohio State and Georgia and several other teams are likely to have excellent seasons.

But I suspect they spend a lot of time-- the bulk of their time-- trying to figure out the surprise teams. Either good or bad surprises. That's where I'd spend my time.

But I'm too lazy to bother publishing a Top 25 of my own. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:21:13 PM
I believe that anyone with experience in this area over time would realize "Hey, I really can't do any better than anyone else, I may as well just sort of hoof it and do whatever strikes my fancy."  Maybe first timers spend effort looking at returning production etc. and put a lot of thought into it and learn over time it just doesn't help.

It's more guesswork than real analysis, and guesswork is often as good as any "real analysis" because not enough information is possible.  Their name will generate clicks, not their accuracy and predictive abilities, and they know this.

I will agree that newcomers probably put in a ton of effort because they think it matters.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 01:29:29 PM
I believe that anyone with experience in this area over time would realize "Hey, I really can't do any better than anyone else, I may as well just sort of hoof it and do whatever strikes my fancy."  Maybe first timers spend effort looking at returning production etc. and put a lot of thought into it and learn over time it just doesn't help.

It's more guesswork than real analysis, and guesswork is often as good as any "real analysis" because not enough information is possible.  Their name will generate clicks, not their accuracy and predictive abilities, and they know this.

I will agree that newcomers probably put in a ton of effort because they think it matters.
I'm arguing that a veteran like Klatt puts in a lot of effort because he ENJOYS it.

But neither of us really know.

I just think it's sort of weird that folks around here reflexively title anything they disagree with as being "lazy."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 07, 2024, 01:30:37 PM
I don't think it's lazy. I do think it's pointless. Especially in the free agency era. 

It might be one thing in the old system to look at teams that maybe did well last year and are low on returning starters, or teams who did poorly last year but were young, and really understand how the teams are likely to do this year with the departures/returnees. You have some young team maybe that finished 6-6 last year but you could see noticeable development through the year and you put them in your top 25 as a "surprise" team. Or you have a team that you think got lucky in a few very close games last year to finish at 10-2, returns their skill players but loses a bunch of big uglies in the trenches, so you fade them and don't include them at all. 

Seems to me now that it's more and more a crapshoot. You have to try to project a bunch of players based on what they did (or didn't) do at their LAST team, coming into a new system, based maybe on a spring game and coachspeak. I have to think in this new era of CFB, getting it right more often than not means getting lucky. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 01:37:26 PM
I don't think it's lazy. I do think it's pointless. Especially in the free agency era.
Oh yeah I can definitely agree with that.

Many (most?) of us around here have argued that there really shouldn't be any rankings at all until maybe the 5th or 6th week of the season.  And free agency just makes our argument that much more valid.

But of course we all know why the pre-season and early season rankings are published.  Clicks, eyeballs, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 01:41:47 PM
Utah could end up being the best team in the Big 12, but that doesn't mean they are a top 10 team.

I predict Miami, aTm, Nebraska, KSU, Iowa and oSu will not finish in the top 25. 

Of those, Nebraska has the best chance to be there in the end, IMO, due to schedule. It's pretty soft, but the people doing the rankings are always swayed by records. They could easily be 7-0 before heading out to Columbus. I could see 9-3/10-2. But that doesn't mean they will make MY top 25.

(https://i.imgur.com/3pkHZGG.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:44:16 PM
I have a hard time thinking an "expert" really expends a lot of effort on something he knows is:

1.  Pointless.
2.  Going to get clicks regardless.
3.  No one will judge him on it later, so it's not as if there is some major payoff later.
4.  About which there is a ton of information most of which is irrelevant, or will be.

I would probably throw in 2-3 oddballs just to get discussion and seem different.  He MIGHT spend more time pondering how to do that than really on rankings.

Maybe he's delusional and thinks HIS efforts are really going to pay out for him, somehow.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 01:47:43 PM
We don't know what Bama is gonna be, post Saban. I mean, the GOAT. Could be a tough transition for them. Schedule is not a cakewalk by any stretch.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZZo3nxr.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 07, 2024, 01:49:14 PM
doesn't take a bunch of effort to maximize clicks

throw Miami and Nebraska on the ranking

done 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:53:17 PM
Sure, but the other tactic is to throw in a real outlier, like say Purdue at 20th, with some kind of bogus rationale.  You get non Purdue fans riled up over it.  

In 10 months, nobody remembers or cares.

I truly think any "expert" who spends more than an hour on these things is an idiot, or a pompous know it all who would try and get a prostitute in some west African country and negotiate, or try to, price.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 07, 2024, 01:54:43 PM
Let's extend this to stock picks, for example.  Now, there is a topic that is, or could be, extremely important.  So, you have all these investment guys with experience in the field putting out their top picks for the next year, whatever.  Yay.  All the commoner has to do is follow them, right?

Nope.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 03:00:47 PM
College football's 15 toughest schedules in 2024, ranked (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-footballs-15-toughest-schedules-in-2024-ranked-225439838/#2347584)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 07, 2024, 03:15:24 PM
lazy list of toughest schedules
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 07, 2024, 04:42:19 PM
And more!!

The Athletic.

(https://i.imgur.com/yhDsmg0.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 07, 2024, 08:13:23 PM
Vegas released new odds for the college football season this fall with favorites for the Heisman being among them. On that list, 14 players sit with odds at (+3000) or better while 34 sit at (+8000) or better at this point of the calendar. It also remains a quarterback-heavy list with the position having 27 players total along with the first 24 total as far as favorites.

Here’s how Vegas expects the race for the sport’s most prestigious award to go with one of these players possibly being the next member to join The Heisman House.


https://www.on3.com/pro/news/2024-heisman-trophy-winner-odds-betting-lines-updated-after-spring-football/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR01370I3vaeKPUuXPXeGewxiR2A5lEJuU6VxV_J6zaFU6SgbPR-x_9PyRg_aem_AQVBqv_tjVYrTBk2PDwZULZ9eckx42CXswxxqRQTE-nCgTrJ9BlVBE6Rstor7wLpwj8cgt5o9vXSMi0itLHdtlxE (https://www.on3.com/pro/news/2024-heisman-trophy-winner-odds-betting-lines-updated-after-spring-football/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR01370I3vaeKPUuXPXeGewxiR2A5lEJuU6VxV_J6zaFU6SgbPR-x_9PyRg_aem_AQVBqv_tjVYrTBk2PDwZULZ9eckx42CXswxxqRQTE-nCgTrJ9BlVBE6Rstor7wLpwj8cgt5o9vXSMi0itLHdtlxE)

Georgia QB Carson Beck (+900)
Texas QB Quinn Ewers (+900)
Oregon QB Dillon Gabriel (+1000)
Alabama QB Jalen Milroe (+1400)
Ohio State QB Will Howard (+1500)
Ole Miss QB Jaxson Dart (+1800)
LSU QB Garrett Nussmeier (+2000)
Tennessee QB Nico Iamaleava (+2000)
Miami QB Cam Ward (+2500)
Kansas State QB Avery Johnson (+3000)
Oklahoma QB Jackson Arnold (+3000)
Notre Dame QB Riley Leonard (+3000)
Florida State QB DJ Uiagalelei (+3000)
Arizona QB Noah Fifita (+3000)
Utah QB Cam Rising (+3500)
Missouri QB Brady Cook (+3500)
Kansas QB Jalon Daniels (+3500)
Colorado QB Shedeur Sanders (+3500)
Texas A&M QB Conner Weigman (+3500)
Clemson QB Cade Klubnik (+4000)
USC QB Jayden Maiava (+4000)
USC QB Miller Moss (+4000)
Penn State QB Drew Allar (+4500)
Ohio State QB Julian Sayin (+5000)
Colorado ATH Travis Hunter (+6000)
Washington QB Will Rogers (+7500)
Ohio State RB Quinshon Judkins (+7500)
Oklahoma State RB Ollie Gordon II (+7500)
Oregon QB Dante Moore (+7500)
Missouri WR Luther Burden (+8000)
Georgia RB Trevor Etienne (+8000)
Ohio State RB TreVeyon Henderson (+8000)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 07, 2024, 08:37:50 PM
Does anyone ever examine preseason rankings after the fact, over years, to determine if any source is better or more predictive of the final outcome?
Stassen does
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 07, 2024, 08:39:53 PM
I started watching the video and got bored.  How is the US "destroying" the future for young folks?
Exhibit A, everyone.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 07:30:21 AM
Stassen does
OK, does anyone do better than anyone else?  I know the case for mutual funds.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 07:42:35 AM
Exhibit A, everyone.
The speaker is deadly boring and destroyed any interest I may have had in the topic.  Folks need to get to the point and stop qaffling around.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:03:51 AM
College football sleeping giants: Programs due for breakthrough (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/sifting-through-college-footballs-sleeping-giants-programs-due-for-breakthrough-231504190/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1_XXXLrY42fllWe_Ub1ymamEqJ3y6RZIPkFcUnvGKJYbucsEYQnQiML9I_aem_ARJRZkRt8RFU8bK2NuOb32CBTPiEnkbadnq-ZVX8LZLcadlTBUvqs0i-bXVNTC8XNxYkfL1kvfrHteOKUvPm6VA7)

GaTech, Nebbie, South Carolina, ECU, Miami, ... 

Meh.

I'm just not seeing much future at Tech anyway.  They could pop up at times.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 08, 2024, 10:04:56 AM
Nebbie is coming back with a vengeance!

I hope
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:12:56 AM
I can buy Nebraska and Miami for obvious reasons.  The others might have a nice season here and there, but I don't expect them to become consistently very good, or to be considered in any sense a "giant".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 08, 2024, 10:15:29 AM
I'm just not seeing much future at Tech anyway.  They could pop up at times.
You'd think Tech might have some upside as they're located right in the center of pretty much the biggest metro in the Southeast. 

But it seemed from my time in the state, that everyone in state is one of two things: a Tech alumni or a Bulldog fan. And one group is MUCH smaller than the other. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:24:20 AM
Tech simply lacks commitment, but students, by administration, by fans.  They are akin to Purdue, in a lot of ways.  Most students view themselves as students, as noted many are foreigners with no background in CFB, they seem to think "college" is about education.

The only time they sell out is when Clemson or UGA play.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 10:27:05 AM
Tech would sell out a lot more if they were in the B1G.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:40:44 AM
I think to become a "giant" in CFB requires several things, and there are no guarantees (see Louisville).  The "commitment" part by all parties is one real key, and involves money, not just interest.  Tech would be another pastry in the B1G, maybe with a ceiling of 7-5.

A coach like Paul Johnson could lift them to some relevance because of his quirky offense.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 10:47:03 AM
I'm not saying they would get good in the B1G. I'm saying they would sell more tickets.

Lots of B1G alumni in Atlanta, and it's an easy destination to travel to. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:49:40 AM
They would sell a lot more tickets when OSU/UM/PSU came to town, and some more with Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa I suspect.  I can't think many BC fans come to watch their team here, or Wake, maybe UNC/UVA/NCSU fans do if their team is doing well.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 10:54:05 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/kipIZG4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 11:02:12 AM
English and USCS units would be nice for that graphic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 12:13:15 PM
Lazy.

Big Ten post-spring power rankings: Ohio State over Oregon for No. 1, USC lands in top five - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-post-spring-power-rankings-ohio-state-over-oregon-for-no-1-usc-lands-in-top-five/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 08, 2024, 01:10:55 PM
USC and Oregon as B1G teams is never, not going to be weird for me, I think.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 01:12:18 PM
I have a tough time recalling A&M is an SEC team now.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 01:24:48 PM
USC and Oregon as B1G teams is never, not going to be weird for me, I think.

Same.

Wisconsin plays them both this season. At USC in late September and home for the Quacks in mid-November. Yay.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 08, 2024, 01:55:42 PM
I have a tough time recalling A&M is an SEC team now.


Then you're going to be really shocked to hear Texas and OU are now in the SEC as well! ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 02:07:16 PM
You mean the SWC folded?

Geesh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 02:08:14 PM
Back in the day, we had real conferences, the Big Ten had TEN teams, the SEC was in the southeast, the ACC was along some ocean, the SWC was pretty much southwester, and the Pac Ten had ten teams along some other ocean.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 08, 2024, 02:28:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VhiWVOg.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 08, 2024, 02:29:03 PM
Recruit Florida!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 08, 2024, 11:25:58 PM
They forgot to highlight Long Island. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 09, 2024, 03:59:38 AM
The speaker is deadly boring and destroyed any interest I may have had in the topic.  Folks need to get to the point and stop qaffling around.
You having no interest in the topic isn't on the speaker, it's on you and that's why there is a problem.
I didn't know you were so into dogs and ponies.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 05:32:27 AM
I prefer to read, or if I try and watch some video, I like for it to get to the point quickly and not talk about what he's about to say.

Plus, there is zero chance I could effect any remedy with respect to whatever he thinks is destroying today's youth.

I have no clue what his point might be.  I live in an area with a lot of "youth" and most seem to be prospering, not being destroyed.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 05:46:56 AM
The per capita figure for Georgia looks pretty high on drafted players.  That's a huge change since I was a kid.

That probably plays into why Kirby does so well .... duh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 07:03:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E)

This.
This.
This.
This.
This.
Ok, I'm going to watch and skip ahead and see if I can summarize....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 07:05:36 AM
Nah, boring as heck.  Something about money and old folks and college expenses, duh.

Never mind, I'm the problem here of course.

Edit, Oh and Mark Zuckerberg is the worst thing for the youth today that ever happened while becoming a zillionaire.

Who is this guy anyway?  Meander on with a ton of platitudes and no practical solution offered at all?  Yay.

Term limits?  Sure thing, simply not going to happen, why propose things that clearly won't happen?  That isn't a real solution to anything.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 09, 2024, 08:25:16 AM
Don't you get it?

It's our fault for busting our asses while these entitled little shits make demands of us.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 08:26:47 AM
Folks send me Ted Talks fairly often, and SOME few of them I find notable and interesting.  Most that I've watched are boring, platitudinous, and lack realistic solutions.

But the audience claps.  Yay.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: CatsbyAZ on May 09, 2024, 10:42:55 AM
Pre-ordered Lindy's 2024 College Football preview. Something I've done since 1999. 25 years now. I can't think of anything else I've determinedly done every year for this many years.

(https://i.imgur.com/CleTFDq.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 09, 2024, 10:44:49 AM
Some folks seem very high on Ole Miss.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 09, 2024, 10:51:12 AM
Pre-ordered Lindy's 2024 College Football preview. Something I've done since 1999. 25 years now. I can't think of anything else I've determinedly done every year for this many years.
I attended the Husker Spring game for more than 35 years straight, starting in 1982
I've skipped a couple recently
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 09, 2024, 07:02:01 PM
Nah, boring as heck.  Something about money and old folks and college expenses, duh.

Never mind, I'm the problem here of course.

Edit, Oh and Mark Zuckerberg is the worst thing for the youth today that ever happened while becoming a zillionaire.

Who is this guy anyway?  Meander on with a ton of platitudes and no practical solution offered at all?  Yay.

Term limits?  Sure thing, simply not going to happen, why propose things that clearly won't happen?  That isn't a real solution to anything.
It's not meant to entertain you.  I don't give a shit if you find it boring.  That's just a lazy way to ignore the content.
Do better.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 09, 2024, 07:03:38 PM
Don't you get it?

It's our fault for busting our asses while these entitled little shits make demands of us.
No, dipshit, a big part of it is that old people busted their asses and it actually was worth it. 
Now you can bust your ass and have nothing to show for it.

But just ignore it.  Just avoid the facts.  You are noble, the young and poor are lazy.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 09, 2024, 07:58:46 PM
It's not meant to entertain you.  I don't give a shit if you find it boring.  That's just a lazy way to ignore the content.
Do better.
Honestly, I watched and found it entertaining. But ultimately I didn't find that it found concrete policy ideas to fix anything. The few thrown out at the end were mostly political non-starters. Including means-testing Social Security, which I am in favor of but will never happen. 

It seemed more along the lines of Don Quixote tilting against windmills than anything meaningful. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 09, 2024, 10:13:33 PM
The overall idea is the thing.  Certain policies or actions aren't feasible, until they are.  You have to get the masses to understand the idea for anything to actually eventually change.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 10, 2024, 07:12:16 AM
No, dipshit, a big part of it is that old people busted their asses and it actually was worth it. 

Now you can bust your ass and have nothing to show for it.

But just ignore it.  Just avoid the facts.  You are noble, the young and poor are lazy.


Dipshit?

The young people who work for me are making a lot of money, and not really busting their asses. They are engineers, of course. They contribute to the 401K and get matched. Something to show for it.

My two boys are making bank, and they do bust their asses at times. They own houses, cars, boats. They have nice bank accounts. Something to show for it.

You can make something of yourself if you get a useful degree or acquire a vocational skill. Those who do not are lazy, stupid, or both. Those are the facts.

Dipshits avoid the facts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 07:57:18 AM
It's not meant to entertain you.  I don't give a shit if you find it boring.  That's just a lazy way to ignore the content.
Do better.
Maybe you could summarize the content and the most seminal important thing he stated.

If a thing is boring, I lose interest, fast.  And of course had I watched the whole thing earnestly, I could do zip about it.

I finished watching the three parter "Abraham Lincoln" on Amazon last night, I thought it was excellent, I learned some stuff about his childhood.  (Warning, the have brief interviews with Obama in it, so if you dislike Obama, maybe avoid it...)

I find baseball interesting, many don't, and the NBA bores me.  Guess which I watch?  Is this a novel concept?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 07:59:58 AM
My kids are doing quite well, interestingly.  One make more money than I ever did.  The other is doing a good job managing on a lesser salary.  The first one majored in English and French, not really majors you'd think would lead to prosperity, but it has.  

The small bits of that I did watch went on about problems I think everyone knows about, with no real solutions that are practicable.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 10, 2024, 08:07:44 AM
Life is what you make it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 08:13:01 AM
I'm fairly amused that someone expects me to watch some video I find boring, so I would "do better".  It's not remotely about doing better, or worse. It's MY time obviously, I choose how to spend it for the most part.  I don't expect folks to watch videos I surface if they don't want to, and I surely expect nobody can DO anything if there is some problem, for the most part.  A few times there can be a plea for charity, fine with me.

I might as well watch soccer, or two Tech students in a bar trying to score.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 10, 2024, 08:14:55 AM
I'm fairly amused that someone expects me to watch some video I find boring, so I would "do better".  It's not remotely about doing better, or worse. It's MY time obviously, I choose how to spend it for the most part.  I don't expect folks to watch videos I surface if they don't want to, and I surely expect nobody can DO anything if there is some problem, for the most part.  A few times there can be a plea for charity, fine with me.

I might as well watch soccer, or two Tech students in a bar trying to score.
I find it condescending. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 08:31:12 AM
I used to give "talks" that were boring.  I knew they were boring, nearly all talks of that nature were boring.  Folks struggled to pay attention.

We had one dude come in from another company give a talk about their product, whatever it was, and he "spiced it up" with photos of scantily clad women, with comments about them.  The thing is, we were a very straight laced outfit, and had female coworkers in the audience.  One of them made a stink about it.  I never knew ths whole story, but it went on for some time, and the VP of that other company finally wrote a letter of apology to us that was shared widely, I suppose as an attempt to make it go away, which it did.  But it still made the lunch time convo for some time.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 09:04:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/zi0466i.png)

I don't understand how folks rank coaches, other than by level of success.  Why is Lea the "worst" coach?  He might be a great coach, but at Vandy, well ... you can only beat Texas.

Maybe Sam Pittman at UGA would do as well or better than Smart.  I think Eli D. is a coach who has done very well with relatively little, I'd have him higher.  DeBoer?  Who knows?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 10, 2024, 09:11:14 AM
Honestly, I watched and found it entertaining. But ultimately I didn't find that it found concrete policy ideas to fix anything. The few thrown out at the end were mostly political non-starters. Including means-testing Social Security, which I am in favor of but will never happen.

It seemed more along the lines of Don Quixote tilting against windmills than anything meaningful.

I don't know, I got stuck on the first point, that college is getting too expensive but that we also need to make the top colleges more accessible.

Not only do I fundamentally disagree with this, but I believe pretty much the opposite.

Our university system is broken because we're using it as a de facto vocational clearinghouse for basic classes of jobs, and it was never intended for that.

Instead we should focus youth on attending ACTUAL vocational schools and learning trades.  These are high paying jobs that don't require mountains of debt to obtain.

CD often points out that in Europe, only something like 30% of kids go on to college.  The rest go into trades, vocational training for hospitality, and dozens of other more suitable options for people who don't need a college education for the jobs they ultimately end up obtaining.  That's the kind of ratio we should be shooting for here in the US.

We need fewer colleges, not more.  We need fewer students attending colleges, not more.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 10, 2024, 09:23:30 AM
yes, if college is too expensive then why are record numbers of diplomas being printed?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 10, 2024, 09:25:12 AM
I find it condescending.
people that care about the future are noble, the old and rich are lazy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 09:30:41 AM
CD often points out that in Europe, only something like 30% of kids go on to college.  The rest go into trades, vocational training for hospitality, and dozens of other more suitable options for people who don't need a college education for the jobs they ultimately end up obtaining.  That's the kind of ratio we should be shooting for here in the US.
It's a bit higher, usually, 35-38%, but a bit over half what we send to college.  I think it's a salient point, which I why I post it over and over.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 12:33:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/grfWOMy.png)+



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 10, 2024, 12:36:39 PM
I agree with the Texas thing

Especially in and around Dallas and the entire length of I-35 in the state
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 10, 2024, 12:39:40 PM
Huh.  I don't consider any of the highways around here to be particularly dangerous.  Annoying and slow and congested with traffic, definitely.  But all those slow-downs are what prevent them from being particularly dangerous.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 12:41:19 PM
I've driven a fair bit in CA including in LA and SF and SD and in the mountains, I didn't consider anything notably dangerous.

But, the rankings could be based on thin differences.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 10, 2024, 12:58:51 PM
I'd have to see the methodology to understand how they got to that ranking. And w/o a link it's not easy to find the actual study. 

I do recall traffic being horrific in Atlanta, and felt like the drivers there were worse than CA drivers... Which is really saying something. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 10, 2024, 01:01:20 PM
Is Georgia the worst state to drive in for 2024? – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/is-georgia-worst-state-drive-2024/W733QVWKRZBX5NL2IETMLKF46U/)

According to WalletHub’s best and worst states to drive  (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-drive-in/43012)in for 2024, Georgia is actually the second-best place to drive in the whole country, only beaten out by Iowa.

Still, the study didn’t say the Peach State was second-best at everything. Instead, it ranked higher, and lower, depending on what traffic factor was measured.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 10, 2024, 01:20:38 PM
the eastern side of Iowa has issues for driving
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 10, 2024, 01:28:42 PM
Perhaps someone has already post this...........
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-post-spring-2024-power-rankings (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-post-spring-2024-power-rankings)

Big Ten Football: Post-Spring 2024 Power Rankings
1. Ohio State



2. Oregon



3. Michigan


4. Penn State


5. USC


6. Iowa


7. Nebraska
True freshman and five-star prospect Dylan Raiola certainly looked the part in spring practice. If Raiola builds on that production in the fall to go with a standout defense, coach Matt Rhule's squad could easily move up this list by a few spots by the end of '24.

8. Wisconsin
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 11, 2024, 10:11:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/YvrqEPp.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 11, 2024, 10:47:52 AM
geez

#1 and #3 shouldn't have been anywhere NEAR the top 20
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 11, 2024, 10:52:12 AM
Nor #5.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 11, 2024, 10:54:04 AM
yup, there's only about 5 on the list that I will leave the volume up for
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 11, 2024, 11:20:12 AM
I'm not sure what the ranking even means.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 12, 2024, 10:56:56 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/fZGsgNT.png)

My "coach" and I have had discussions about this stat.  He thinks it's better to have a pitch count around 100.  He hurt his arm when he was in his third year in MLB and rotator cuff surgery, and was different when he came back.

I once pitched a 12 inning game in JV baseball when I was 15, I think I struck out 20 and walked 7, so you can imagine my picth count, we didn't have another pitcher on that team.  That wasn't the one that hurt my arm though.

Don't get me started on Nolan "The Alien" Ryan.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 12, 2024, 10:58:14 AM
I watched the Braves' game yesterday and Max Fried had a no-no through seven at 106 and was lifted.  The Mets got a hit with 2 out in the 9th.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 12, 2024, 11:17:02 AM
the eastern side of Iowa has issues for driving
well stay off the wrong side of the road when you're there then
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 12, 2024, 05:17:17 PM
College football rankings: Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon lead post-spring top 25 ahead of 2024 season - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-rankings-georgia-ohio-state-oregon-lead-post-spring-top-25-ahead-of-2024-season/)

Boring, maybe not lazy, but maybe that as well.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 12, 2024, 09:34:03 PM
What's the worst thing that's ever been ranked? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 12, 2024, 10:39:28 PM
disco music
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 12, 2024, 10:49:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/TOC8POJ.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 13, 2024, 12:20:21 AM
Stassen's list
1. OSU
2. Georgia
3. OU
4. Bama
5. FSU
6. Clemson
7. Michigan
8. Miami (tie) Nebraska
10. Florida
11. Penn St
12. BYU
13. Texas
14. LSU
15. Auburn
16. USC
19. Tennessee (tie) ND (tie) A&M
.
Some major discrepancies.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 13, 2024, 06:16:23 AM
What's the worst thing that's ever been ranked?
Presidents.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 13, 2024, 07:46:44 AM
The 30 Best Tailgating Schools In College Football, Ranked (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/the-30-best-tailgating-schools-in-college-football-ranked/ss-BB1mfHFN?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b5097cd1f355449ab2582971bed5ebd7&ei=14)

Been to several of these. Would like to get to more.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 13, 2024, 08:15:39 AM
me too
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 08:49:55 AM
For me, the worst thing to rank are wines, but that has minimal impact on most of us.  I also think "we" tend to misuse rankings, "we" might think a university ranked 40th is better than one ranked 50th by USNWR, putting aside whether those rankings are any good.  I use them for two reasons:

1.  To spot something I didn't know might be pretty good, like a university I never heard of that was ranked say 30th.
2.  To get a very general idea of which schools have better reputations, not 1 v 3, but schools in the top 20 probably look good on a resume.

A wine ranked with say 90 points is not worse than one ranked with 92 points necessarily.  It's a tiny tiny difference judged by, usually, one person using his criteria.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 13, 2024, 09:06:54 AM
I only buy cigars rated 90 or above
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 13, 2024, 09:23:59 AM
Ranking-- Top 30 songs of the 1970s:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/entertainment/article/best-70s-songs/?sh=327ed7ae6043
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 09:25:41 AM
Humans like rankings, they get clicks, and arguments.

I love seeing some ranking on FB, the comments get epic.

"Best cities for young people ...."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 11:41:24 AM
College football's 30 most impressive facilities in 2024, ranked (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-footballs-30-most-impressive-facilities-in-2024-ranked-231708134/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3VvhLc3Be2_-45LZQlSkAT4t-fdukGV7HlaTv3g0Ma9P2Ej_H588qwaGo_aem_AYI2w-LO3PB_dH5TqdxQxeX1jrfozbVCVsv28L4QdL6rBa3aVe5WCyv3SP4_4Dpvgu41_VsKpgVte_yvdaw_gsYd)

My guess is anything in the top 10-15 is sufficiently impressive.

They have Oregon at 1, then Bama then UGA, A&M, Clemson.

6. LSU
7. Ohio State
8. Nebraska
9.  Auburn
10.  South Carolina (now there is an unexpected one).

11.  Texas
12.  Florida
13.  Northwestern !!!!!
14.  Arkansas
15.  Eastern Michigan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 13, 2024, 11:50:08 AM
yup, anything in the top 10 would come down to personal preference by 17-18 year olds
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 13, 2024, 12:05:37 PM
These days I reckon NIL is a much stronger motivator than facilities, for a potential recruit.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 12:38:22 PM
A sensible player would look at how well the program gets players ready for the NFL, but the NIL monies apparently can be so high now that the NFL salaries are not nearly as compelling as they once were (obviously).  I wonder if NIL however "cancels out" for top players as they might be getting about the same figure from their top candidates.  Then facilities might be a factor to some extent, but probably not pivotal.  Top players aren't considering any place without excellent facilities.

The coaches probably are pivotal, along with comfort with the region, southerners typically don't go far north.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 01:06:51 PM
Soe major(ish) programs not in the top 15:

USC
Penn State
Michigan
Washington
Tennessee
Ole Miss
Iowa
FSU
Miami
Oklahoma State


But USCe and NW did make the list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 13, 2024, 01:15:14 PM
UW is working on its new facility now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 02:47:06 PM
Atlanta crowned best U.S. city for starting a career—again | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/atl-best-us-city-starting-career-graduates-job-study)

(https://i.imgur.com/GTfJ5du.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 13, 2024, 02:47:46 PM
I'd opine the best city for starting one's career is where you're offered a job ....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 15, 2024, 12:05:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/yk2rBU5.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 15, 2024, 04:16:29 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zyl2I8N.png)

Best Summer Travel Destinations in 2024 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-summer-travel-destinations/3792)

OK, this is pretty weird in my book.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 15, 2024, 04:18:51 PM

[th]Overall Rank [/th]
[th]Destination
(Metro Area)
[/th]
[th]Total Score [/th]
[th]Travel Costs & Hassles Rank [/th]
[th]Local Costs Rank [/th]
[th]Attractions Rank [/th]
[th]Weather Rank [/th]
[th]Activities Rank [/th]
[th]Safety Rank [/th]
1Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA Metro Area66.777381615729
2Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area66.3215781519141
3Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area65.902330662246
4Urban Honolulu, HI Metro Area64.97298181143
5Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area63.16184724401122
6Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX Metro Area61.64464010212749
7Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area61.6266219421747
8Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area61.594282455654
9El Paso, TX Metro Area60.88452063105118
10Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metro Area60.8452293848914
11Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area60.4746536113172
12New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area60.374189266823
13Richmond, VA Metro Area60.06206146322327
14Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area59.4126721467557
15Springfield, MO Metro Area59.3491272276780
16Knoxville, TN Metro Area59.2557679364536
17Tulsa, OK Metro Area59.1229160186475
18Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area59.0135247177966
19San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area58.9636522383695
20Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area58.4428971491264
21Raleigh-Cary, NC Metro Area57.87396040225620
22Grand Rapids-Kentwood, MI Metro Area57.6852758765335
23Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metro Area57.5481353516376
24St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area57.36781528122571
25Lafayette, LA Metro Area57.2533384478853
26New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metro Area57.16613612392291
27Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metro Area57.1277446131355
28Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metro Area57.0644
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on May 16, 2024, 12:48:53 AM
ATL is pretty much the same as PHX in my book,   stay away 100% between May-Sept.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 16, 2024, 07:10:48 AM
May is pretty nice here, usually, it's 61°F at the moment, but I don't view it as a prime place to go for a vacation.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 16, 2024, 08:52:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/r1ufoa7.png)

It seems a bit odd to me to rank baseball teams at this point, but I'm sure this gets clicks etc.  Every team ranked is southern except the two Oregon teams and Indy State.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 16, 2024, 09:06:30 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/r1ufoa7.png)

It seems a bit odd to me to rank baseball teams at this point, but I'm sure this gets clicks etc.  Every team ranked is southern except the two Oregon teams and Indy State.

They've always ranked baseball teams, and multiple sources do it.  The most widely respected rankings are from the publication "Baseball America."  For whatever that's worth.

Since there is a rather large baseball tournament at the end of the year, the rankings don't really matter much.  Just a way for fans to gauge the quality of their team on a national scale.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 16, 2024, 12:52:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/c3L1DJM.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2024, 01:01:05 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/c3L1DJM.png)
The B1G set up OSU pretty nicely this season.


(https://i.imgur.com/PwMEdIL.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 16, 2024, 02:30:35 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/r1ufoa7.png)

It seems a bit odd to me to rank baseball teams at this point, but I'm sure this gets clicks etc.  Every team ranked is southern except the two Oregon teams and Indy State.
Why odd at this point?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 16, 2024, 02:34:09 PM
Well, utee's comments above mirror mine (not for the first time).  We have a playoff, so the rankings strike me as a bit odd.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 16, 2024, 02:51:49 PM
Well, utee's comments above mirror mine (not for the first time).  We have a playoff, so the rankings strike me as a bit odd.


Other than the observation you've made many times, that people just like to rank things in lists and they'll do it for almost anything...

The main benefit to the rankings for me, as a college baseball fan, is to see how the national folks view the top teams versus one another, which gives at least SOME indication of where each team might ultimately be selected and seeded by the NCAA tournament selection committee.

It's not 100% aligned of course, but in general the #1 team is going to host a regional and likely host a super, while the #25 team is unlikely to be hosting either.

Well, except if Texas is 25.  We often get a regional even if we haven't earned one.  Helmetosity, baseball style.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 16, 2024, 02:53:32 PM
[img width=234.333 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/zyl2I8N.png[/img]

Best Summer Travel Destinations in 2024 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-summer-travel-destinations/3792)

OK, this is pretty weird in my book. 


That's because the hometown airline delivers everyone's luggage to Atlanta, no matter where it's supposed to go. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2024, 03:08:44 PM
That's because the hometown airline delivers everyone's luggage to Atlanta, no matter where it's supposed to go.
Have you experienced that with Delta?

American has never lost any of our bags, thankfully.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 16, 2024, 03:19:00 PM
I've never had a bag lost.  Haneda claims they have not lost a bag in 30 years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 16, 2024, 03:37:51 PM
Have you experienced that with Delta?

American has never lost any of our bags, thankfully.
No, but almost all of the operational people for Delta at MSP and DTW are old Northwest people.

One thing that Delta could get rid of that wouldn't break my heart are Northwest's old 757s that they fly between here and the West Coast. Those flights aren't long or profitable enough to justify putting a wide body on, and they have no seat pitch. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2024, 03:48:10 PM
I did not know they were still flying 757's. Interesting.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2024, 06:56:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zyl2I8N.png)

Best Summer Travel Destinations in 2024 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-summer-travel-destinations/3792)

OK, this is pretty weird in my book. 


Uhh.....did they install a beach?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2024, 06:58:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/c3L1DJM.png)
Perfect for a HC on the hot seat.....


Who abbreviates GT with Georgia Te?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 16, 2024, 10:06:24 PM
Well, utee's comments above mirror mine (not for the first time).  We have a playoff, so the rankings strike me as a bit odd.


Ahh, capitalism bay-beee!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 08:13:34 AM
As noted, humans really really like rankings.  I think it feeds our ego (or diminishes it, in which case we probably claim the rankings are bogus).

Take any such ranking, wines, cheese, food of any type, restaurants, best places to  visit in Europe/Asia/Antarctica, and "we" will check out where we're been or dined or drunk against the list, and then probably claim the list is bogus.

Or brag that we've actually sampled from wine of X type.  Or brag that OUR team is in the Top Ten (yay).  

I think there can be some merit in such rankings at times, but for the most part, they really really are irrelevant to the vast majority of us.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 09:41:17 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Vcw0jZM.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 09:53:45 AM
Where is it and what is it called?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 17, 2024, 09:54:13 AM
I think rankings are great. I thought I hated hot dogs until I had Hebrew Nationals. But she didn't have access to hot dog rankings so I was stuck with whatever there was a commercial for.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 09:55:26 AM
Ever have Vienna hot dogs? Puts Hebrew to shame. 

I also like Boars Head.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 17, 2024, 09:57:25 AM
Ever have Vienna hot dogs? Puts Hebrew to shame.

I also like Boars Head.
No, unless I had them at a hot dog stand or something. I don't think I've seen them in local stores, though I haven't looked that closely.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 09:59:16 AM
No, unless I had them at a hot dog stand or something. I don't think I've seen them in local stores, though I haven't looked that closely.
Can't get them here either. I've asked the manager at Publix, to no avail. So, I settle for Boars Head.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:01:12 AM
Gourmet hotdogs?  Huh.  They all taste the same to me, the bun makes a bigger difference to me, along with toppings, but I rarely eat them nowadays.

A really good bun is really good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 17, 2024, 10:27:03 AM
Gourmet hotdogs?  Huh.  They all taste the same to me, the bun makes a bigger difference to me, along with toppings, but I rarely eat them nowadays.

A really good bun is really good.
Try a Hebrew National or Nathan's compared to say a Oscar Meyer classic. They do not taste the same, aren't even particularly similar.

I always throw a pack of hot dogs on when I'm smoking something. "For the kids" even though I always sneak one or two. Don't even need a bun. Though yeah, a steamed bun with some onions and mustard...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:29:48 AM
I've had both types.  I probably load a hot dog so much I don't taste the hot dog.  I like kraut on a dog.  But as I said, I eat maybe 2 a year.

We have a "fantasy camp reunion" at the Braves' game Sunday and they will have dogs and burgers (usually not very good).  They have a "suite" for us.  It's not very deluxe to me, it's really a conference room.  I might have a dog there, and some cheap beer.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 10:33:37 AM
Try a Hebrew National or Nathan's compared to say a Oscar Meyer classic. They do not taste the same, aren't even particularly similar.

I always throw a pack of hot dogs on when I'm smoking something. "For the kids" even though I always sneak one or two. Don't even need a bun. Though yeah, a steamed bun with some onions and mustard...
Add relish and sport peppers and you've got a masterpiece.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:34:52 AM
I get one at Costco once a year or so, it's not really a hotdog, more like some kind of sausage thing.

They used to have kraut.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 10:35:10 AM
Natural Casing Chicago Style Hot Dog Kit 10 PACK Vienna Beef (https://www.viennabeef.com/natural-casing-chicago-style-hot-dog-kit/)

(https://i.imgur.com/jPDcyND.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 17, 2024, 10:36:43 AM
Relish = puke
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:39:20 AM
I go for onion/kraut/mustard, and hopefully a really good bun.  It can be a turkey dog and it won't matter to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 10:42:03 AM
Relish = puke
Some people just don't like it. I think it's great, but I'm a pickle freak.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:44:37 AM
I don't relish, um, relish.

I like pickles.  On a dog, I go for something more acidic I think, less sweet.  I'd put some jalapenoes on one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 17, 2024, 10:45:06 AM
I like onion/kraut/mustard.

Usually around here it's chili, onion, mustard, jalapenos, and shredded cheddar cheese.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 10:46:41 AM
The Best Hot Dog Brand: A Blind Taste Test | Bon Appétit (bonappetit.com) (https://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/story/best-hot-dog-brand)

Not Just Any Hot Dog: Nathan's
The ingredients: beef, water; contains 2% or less of salt, sorbitol, sodium lactate, natural flavorings, sodium phosphates, hydrolyzed corn protein, paprika, sodium diacetate, sodium erythorbate, sodium nitrate.
The verdict: Nathan’s hot dogs got high marks from every taster, and they were quickly deemed our favorite. Their intense, beefy flavor and lovely sparks of garlic made this brand stand out from the competition. Youngman described the dog as “juicy but not pasty,” and Avalle predicted that Nathan’s would be a crowd pleaser at any cookout. It would appear she’s correct—the dish full of Nathan’s hot dogs was the only one left empty at the end of our taste test, after our tasters went back for seconds and thirds. 


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 17, 2024, 11:08:04 AM
They missed a number of big brands in that taste test.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 17, 2024, 03:30:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWT0kl1k32M

Each state's top dish ranked against each other. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 05:22:32 PM
They missed a number of big brands in that taste test.
I'm sure they did.  I surmise they tasted the hotdog with nothing on it.  Anyway, it's another pretty useless ranking.  I think individuals are pretty capable of forming their own personal opinions taking things like cost into account.  I formed mine obviously.

I've noted before, some rankings can be of value when the topic is something beyond what an individual could do on his own and where the ranking criteria are explained and it's not entirely subjective.  Take "Best Place to Retire", someone might read that ranking and spot a location that sounds interesting, maybe it's Number 10 on the list.  So, they visit and find it does suit them.  Great.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 17, 2024, 07:03:29 PM
I'm sure they did.  I surmise they tasted the hotdog with nothing on it.  Anyway, it's another pretty useless ranking.  I think individuals are pretty capable of forming their own personal opinions taking things like cost into account.  
It is very unlikely that I would ever buy 18 kinds of hot dogs to compare against each other
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 17, 2024, 07:07:03 PM
Over time, folks try things often as not, or they can. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 18, 2024, 12:01:38 PM
https://comicstadium.com/from-best-to-worst-27-us-fast-food-chains-cheeseburgers-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=FC_Burger+Ranked_P4_YTA+-+vv8CS+CS+FB+WWide+DS&utm_term=120208226267440232&layout=inf3&vtype=3&utm_id=120208226266670232&utm_content=120208226271700232&fbclid=IwAR1dwJCn0MzCmuTUyYUDy223YnSgAWMurUBqWsYPQ02c-yql0wThen4tPHY_aem_AdRUGFLdRpNODQp9b_-3NwvF6TMNzo1kUyt0lV57lomUAG7k3Pj7aHDrw3fpcs8O7cYEcqF6c3Lczs_1V-mBQaNn&r=1#section-9 (https://comicstadium.com/from-best-to-worst-27-us-fast-food-chains-cheeseburgers-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=FC_Burger+Ranked_P4_YTA+-+vv8CS+CS+FB+WWide+DS&utm_term=120208226267440232&layout=inf3&vtype=3&utm_id=120208226266670232&utm_content=120208226271700232&fbclid=IwAR1dwJCn0MzCmuTUyYUDy223YnSgAWMurUBqWsYPQ02c-yql0wThen4tPHY_aem_AdRUGFLdRpNODQp9b_-3NwvF6TMNzo1kUyt0lV57lomUAG7k3Pj7aHDrw3fpcs8O7cYEcqF6c3Lczs_1V-mBQaNn&r=1#section-9)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on May 18, 2024, 04:01:39 PM
Nathan's hot dogs eaten in New York are better than the ones sold elsewhere. 

Raw onions on hot dogs/sausages > fried onions on hot dogs/sausage 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 18, 2024, 04:28:24 PM
https://comicstadium.com/from-best-to-worst-27-us-fast-food-chains-cheeseburgers-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=FC_Burger+Ranked_P4_YTA+-+vv8CS+CS+FB+WWide+DS&utm_term=120208226267440232&layout=inf3&vtype=3&utm_id=120208226266670232&utm_content=120208226271700232&fbclid=IwAR1dwJCn0MzCmuTUyYUDy223YnSgAWMurUBqWsYPQ02c-yql0wThen4tPHY_aem_AdRUGFLdRpNODQp9b_-3NwvF6TMNzo1kUyt0lV57lomUAG7k3Pj7aHDrw3fpcs8O7cYEcqF6c3Lczs_1V-mBQaNn&r=1#section-9 (https://comicstadium.com/from-best-to-worst-27-us-fast-food-chains-cheeseburgers-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=FC_Burger+Ranked_P4_YTA+-+vv8CS+CS+FB+WWide+DS&utm_term=120208226267440232&layout=inf3&vtype=3&utm_id=120208226266670232&utm_content=120208226271700232&fbclid=IwAR1dwJCn0MzCmuTUyYUDy223YnSgAWMurUBqWsYPQ02c-yql0wThen4tPHY_aem_AdRUGFLdRpNODQp9b_-3NwvF6TMNzo1kUyt0lV57lomUAG7k3Pj7aHDrw3fpcs8O7cYEcqF6c3Lczs_1V-mBQaNn&r=1#section-9)
This ranking brought to you by [fairly bad] generative AI!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on May 18, 2024, 05:13:03 PM
(https://www.usinger.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/eeff6f0ccb8c8181d83a8a26a3ed8d1c/7/3/7352_beef_franks.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 18, 2024, 06:10:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWT0kl1k32M

Each state's top dish ranked against each other.
This was pretty interesting though a 27 minute youtube video is a commitment. But I was duty at work so I had some downtime.

The put each states dish in tiers then ranked the ones in the top tier. The overall winner was Oklahoma with the onion smash burger, which edged Illinois and their Italian beef sandwich. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 18, 2024, 08:57:36 PM
(https://www.usinger.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/eeff6f0ccb8c8181d83a8a26a3ed8d1c/7/3/7352_beef_franks.jpg)
$8/lb??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 19, 2024, 01:37:16 PM
It is very unlikely that I would ever buy 18 kinds of hot dogs to compare against each other
And you call yourself an American??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 19, 2024, 01:38:31 PM
This was pretty interesting though a 27 minute youtube video is a commitment. But I was duty at work so I had some downtime.

The put each states dish in tiers then ranked the ones in the top tier. The overall winner was Oklahoma with the onion smash burger, which edged Illinois and their Italian beef sandwich.
I can't fathom a burger better than an italian beef.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2024, 02:16:43 PM
The best burger I ever had, bar none, was when a friend of mine wanted a beef tenderloin, said he would buy it if I grilled it.  OK, fine.  He went to a butcher shop and ordered a tenderloin and the butcher asked him what he wanted to do with the tailings.  My friend had no clue, so the butcher ground it.

We had the filet mignons and they were as  usual.  The next night I figured I'd have the ground tailings and the same guy came over, and it was better than the filet mignon.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 19, 2024, 02:17:27 PM
I can't fathom a burger better than an italian beef.
I like both but I'd probably prefer a really good smash burger.

The top 8:

1. OK: Onion smashburger
2. IL: Italian beef
3. GA:  Lemon pepper wings
4. LA: gumbo
5. MD: Crab cakes
6. CA: California burrito
7. CO: Colorado verde chili
8. MA: Clam chowder


I'd never heard of onion burgers being on Oklahoma thing, nor lemon pepper wings being a Georgia thing. The more you know.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2024, 02:20:12 PM
Sports bars around here have wings of course with usually a large variety of sauces.  Lemon pepper is by no means anything singular.  I don't think we have a "state food" though, if pressed I might suggest shrimp and grits, as it is very popular here.  Boiled peanuts might be a state food, though it's not unique to GA of course.

I really like them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 19, 2024, 02:35:14 PM
Sports bars around here have wings of course with usually a large variety of sauces.  Lemon pepper is by no means anything singular.  I don't think we have a "state food" though, if pressed I might suggest shrimp and grits, as it is very popular here.  Boiled peanuts might be a state food, though it's not unique to GA of course.

I really like them.
Its apparently a combo of a scene from the show Atlanta and from the Atlanta strip club wing scene.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2024, 02:44:03 PM
We miss you… (secretatlanta.co) (https://secretatlanta.co/2024-atlanta-bucket-list/?utm_source=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_medium=smn_post&utm_campaign=bucket-list_atl&ad_id=120205258004880678&fbclid=IwAR1V_jBghmMdDMx6qf06vPiuO3lImDFcZlW834VbhLC0RogeqSHK0DwAANQ_aem_AXzvIHoKGhDYLNww7FxI56SRXpP1wYb8RK7PgNaQGuxB3W6MlZw0cqTl7t8o-6RxHjBGazlNkOIG1dmPnEVwo5sH)

Dove tails on the ranking of ATL as some top tourist destination.  I didn't know indoor skydiving was unique to ATL.  It probably isn't.  Some of these things I'd opine are worth doing.

This is our year, Atlanta! From [color=var(--theme-primary-color)]candlelit concerts[/color] (https://feverup.com/en/atlanta/candlelight?utm_source=secretatlanta&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=_atl&utm_content=2024-atlanta-bucket-list&utm_term=secondary_title) to indoor skydiving, check off your Atlanta bucket list with experiences you can only live in The Gate City.

(https://i.imgur.com/yOlBoVX.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 19, 2024, 03:26:25 PM
Sports bars around here have wings of course with usually a large variety of sauces.  Lemon pepper is by no means anything singular.  I don't think we have a "state food" though, if pressed I might suggest shrimp and grits, as it is very popular here.  Boiled peanuts might be a state food, though it's not unique to GA of course.

I really like them.
I miss boiled peanuts in every gas station.  AZ people have no idea about them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 19, 2024, 03:27:11 PM
I like both but I'd probably prefer a really good smash burger.

The top 8:

1. OK: Onion smashburger
2. IL: Italian beef
3. GA:  Lemon pepper wings
4. LA: gumbo
5. MD: Crab cakes
6. CA: California burrito
7. CO: Colorado verde chili
8. MA: Clam chowder


I'd never heard of onion burgers being on Oklahoma thing, nor lemon pepper wings being a Georgia thing. The more you know.

If this was a menu, I'd take the italian beef, some gumbo, and crab cakes.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 19, 2024, 03:34:37 PM
If this was a menu, I'd take the italian beef, some gumbo, and crab cakes. 
Based on what you've said (or perhaps not said) before, I don't think you cook much, right? 

If you're a crab cake fan, I recommend actually learning to cook them. They're super easy. 

Also easy are these salmon cakes (https://natashaskitchen.com/salmon-cakes-recipe/), given how expensive crab meat is... If you try it I recommend forming it into 4 big cakes rather than 8-9 small ones as suggested in the recipe...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2024, 03:45:35 PM
All those things sound great but I’d have the wings a distant last.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 19, 2024, 03:56:22 PM
All those things sound great but I’d have the wings a distant last. 
I enjoy some wings from time to time, but I can't imagine they would be atop the list of ANY state's food. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 19, 2024, 04:14:54 PM
I enjoy some wings from time to time, but I can't imagine they would be atop the list of ANY state's food.
This is how I feel about crab cakes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 19, 2024, 04:31:26 PM
I do like good crab cakes quite a bit, and good NE clam chowder, and good gumbo (which I make at home, a variation probably).  I guess I like seafood, I see food and eat it.

The only thing I won't eat is fried liver.

I'm not too big on "sweet meats" or sweatbread but they are quite tasty.  Whoever named those items was out of his or her mind.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 19, 2024, 04:58:45 PM
Based on what you've said (or perhaps not said) before, I don't think you cook much, right?

If you're a crab cake fan, I recommend actually learning to cook them. They're super easy.

Also easy are these salmon cakes (https://natashaskitchen.com/salmon-cakes-recipe/), given how expensive crab meat is... If you try it I recommend forming it into 4 big cakes rather than 8-9 small ones as suggested in the recipe...
Yeah, I've made them a few times.  As you say, kind of expensive to probably do a good job, lol.  

I could eat 10 of those things, but 2-3 is a serving at a fair price.  

90% of places that serve them are low on the crab and high on the breadcrumbs, which stinks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 19, 2024, 07:23:59 PM
I'm going to BWWs in Kearney, NE for some wings now!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on May 19, 2024, 07:32:50 PM
I'm going to BWWs in Kearney, NE for some wings now!
Nebraska's food was the runza. Get that runza!

I put crab with lobster and beef tenderloin in the category of foods that I understand people like, and it's not like I hate them, but what you get for the money spent is never worth it. Give me those wings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 20, 2024, 07:07:06 AM
does Runza have a rewards program like BWW?

I do like a hot fresh Runza once in a while but I don't eat fast food

BWWs gotta be much healthier

chicken fat with hot sauce and deep fried tots and Bud Heavy outta the tap
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 20, 2024, 10:19:03 AM
Ranking SEC college towns from worst to first (usatoday.com) (https://ugawire.usatoday.com/lists/ranking-sec-college-towns-from-worst-to-first/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2MdzaB1Yk3UnR9AIr7xTTuz9sd-aDjOwaY6HhoUWHgbtvxYtX_gtAuBrU_aem_AWysx3xzeDeJCMXNmRaP3LEJT3yINTixA5lcJl-IAuFuJyVG92sldZeR0S8CfzgnIJMTFKEbvjTWj4yIMs3NMZ1Y)

Meh, they have Nashville near last and Starkvegas in the middle?  OK.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 20, 2024, 11:08:53 AM
my brother worked in Starkville for a few years while Jackie Sherill was there

he didn't seem to think it was very good

certainly didn't want to raise kids there

moved to Louisville
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 20, 2024, 11:57:39 AM
my brother worked in Starkville for a few years while Jackie Sherill was there

he didn't seem to think it was very good

certainly didn't want to raise kids there

moved to Louisville
I have visited Starkville about one and a half times, end it honestly didn’t seem all that terrible. Definitely small, definitely somewhat remote, but if you were wired a certain way, probably a good place to raise a family.

Probably a terrible place to be unmarried and 25.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 20, 2024, 11:59:04 AM
the public schools weren't good there back in the late 90s
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 20, 2024, 12:00:11 PM
Never been to Starkville, but I wonder how it's higher than Oxford, if it was.  I don't think much of Columbia, SC.  They probably have odd criteria.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 20, 2024, 12:02:20 PM
Columbia, MO?

No...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 20, 2024, 12:33:16 PM
I think Athens is a good college town.  For one thing, it's large enough without being too large, probably about the best size overall.  But ranking them to me is click bait, we'd each have our own criteria and favorites, and what does it matter anyway?  I'd guess some Tech students thing Atlanta is a good college town.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 20, 2024, 01:23:37 PM
Never been to Starkville, but I wonder how it's higher than Oxford, if it was.  I don't think much of Columbia, SC.  They probably have odd criteria.
They list Oxford ahead. Obviously it’s a just a silly ranking. 

Columbia has some pretty good stuff, but it’s got low curb appeal. Definitely more midsize city than pure college town, especially with the campus that is more integrated with the city than a lot of them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 20, 2024, 01:42:21 PM
It's not on the list because Texas isn't in the SEC yet, but even if it were, I don't actually consider Austin to be a great college town.  It's a great town, but not a great college town.

To me a great college town is centered on the college at its heart.  Austin is just too big, and the UT campus is all mixed up with downtown Austin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on May 20, 2024, 01:57:45 PM
It's not on the list because Texas isn't in the SEC yet, but even if it were, I don't actually consider Austin to be a great college town.  It's a great town, but not a great college town.

To me a great college town is centered on the college at its heart.  Austin is just too big, and the UT campus is all mixed up with downtown Austin.
That’s an interesting one. I feel like it definitely has a reputation, but it’s also enormous. And that might drown out the college parts a bit. I guess that makes Madison unusual because it has a state capital but also that college town vibe. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 20, 2024, 02:11:17 PM
Don't get me wrong, I mean, tons of bars and live music and several nearby lakes and a lot of outdoor green space, make Austin a really good town for college students.  I just don't consider it a college town.  So much other stuff going on all the time that has nothing to do with the university.

40 years ago, I would have said Austin was a great college town.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on May 20, 2024, 02:48:26 PM
i think Austin has outgrown college town.  Honestly it feels more like Nashville or Columbus than Madison to me, and mostly for worse than for better.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 20, 2024, 02:54:27 PM
Lincoln is more populated than Madison, I think. Minneapolis, Chicago, Lansing.

Madison feels like a college town to me. Lincoln, not really. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 20, 2024, 03:26:46 PM
Oregon might be a college town. Not sure - never been. The other three are for sure not college towns.

Penn State
Michigan
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Iowa

Those truly feel like college towns. Madison, Nebraska and MSU have a college feel, but maybe are not college towns. No pro teams.

Ohio State
Northwestern
Minnesota

Definitely not college towns. Pro teams.

I've not been to Rutgers or Maryland. Can't make an opinion on those two.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 20, 2024, 07:17:00 PM
the public schools weren't good there back in the late 90s
It's in Mississippi, so....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 20, 2024, 07:26:14 PM
Ohio State
Northwestern
Minnesota

Definitely not college towns. Pro teams.
C-Bus grew leaps and bounds around the University,of course being the State Capitol prolly had a lot to do with it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 20, 2024, 07:27:34 PM
i think Austin has outgrown college town.  Honestly it feels more like Nashville or Columbus than Madison to me, and mostly for worse than for better.
Stop doing 94's job for him
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on May 20, 2024, 07:33:28 PM
does Runza have a rewards program like BWW?

I do like a hot fresh Runza once in a while but I don't eat fast food

BWWs gotta be much healthier

chicken fat with hot sauce and deep fried tots and Bud Heavy outta the tap
You should teach health class in between puffs on a Churchill
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 20, 2024, 08:41:37 PM

I've never heard anyone argue that Columbus is a professional sports town before. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on May 20, 2024, 08:52:36 PM
I definitely don't view Lincoln or Madison as college towns anymore.    Too much non Univ growth and development as it's the trough for the pigs as the Capital city, respectively.   

Doesn't make them lesser places just not what I think of as a college town.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 20, 2024, 09:32:50 PM
I definitely don't view Lincoln or Madison as college towns anymore.    Too much non Univ growth and development as it's the trough for the pigs as the Capital city, respectively. 

Doesn't make them lesser places just not what I think of as a college town.
I thought they were presidents.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 21, 2024, 07:54:32 AM
I've never heard anyone argue that Columbus is a professional sports town before.
They have a few pro sports teams. More than Champaign.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2024, 08:03:05 AM
I think we'd all agree that at some point a city becomes to large to be a real "college town".  My guess is that limit is something like 200,000 metro area.  Above that, the university influence is too diluted, though the area around said U probably will seem collegy.  It could still be fine for students, it's just that five miles away you wouldn't have any/much evidence there is a large U nearby.

If you can walk through downtown of a city and see little evidence there is a large U nearby, it's not, to me, a college town.  It's a city that has a U in it, like Cincinnati.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 21, 2024, 08:07:19 AM
Madison is weird (truly, to me, in many ways).

You can drive 20 miles outside of it and see the W. Same with everywhere in the city. It is large, yes, but the university dominates - even with the capital down the street.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2024, 08:47:37 AM
Drive 20 miles outside of downtown Athens and you might see a few Dawg signs somewhere, but it would look pretty much like the outskirts of any smaller city.

Even ten miles.  Campus influence is probably more like five miles from Sanford Stadium, maybe a bit more.  Outside of that, it looks like Gainesville, GA or Rome, GA.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2024, 08:52:49 AM
150 Best Places to Live in the U.S. in 2024-2025 | U.S. News (usnews.com) (https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live?src=usn_pr)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 21, 2024, 11:26:06 AM
14 Best Places to Live in Florida in 2024-2025 | U.S. News (usnews.com) (https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live-in-florida)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2024, 01:36:19 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mH7Wqvp.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 21, 2024, 08:00:32 PM
Our 3 biggest rivals.............agreed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 22, 2024, 09:30:14 AM
Our 3 biggest rivals.............agreed.
Yup, our two biggest rivals as well.  Can't disagree. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2024, 09:55:18 AM
The most annoying fan bases will always be your rivals and perhaps some pesky program's fans that occasional manages to beat you, but really is inferior.

I knew quite a few Ohio State fans in Cincy of course, we'd talk football a fair bit.  The ones I knew were good fans.  I still know two of them and carry on about CFB.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 22, 2024, 11:21:12 AM
The most annoying fan bases will always be your rivals and perhaps some pesky program's fans that occasional manages to beat you, but really is inferior.

I knew quite a few Ohio State fans in Cincy of course, we'd talk football a fair bit.  The ones I knew were good fans.  I still know two of them and carry on about CFB.
Not to me. I generally tend to feel sorry for them, but those two losses in a row to Iowa have me a little pissed. But Iowa fans are not at all annoying to me. I find them very similar to Wisconsin fans. I do consider many Wisconsin fans to be annoying, to be honest, especially those who get blind drunk. Same goes for some Iowa fans.

Nebraska is not really a rival. I'd say Northwestern is more of a rival, but they don't have annoying fans because there aren't any.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2024, 11:23:54 AM
Blind drunk fans can be annoying?  Heh.

We went to a game at Kentucky a few years back, afternoon game, and one UK student was apparently blind drunk before the game and spewing loudly about how the Cats were going to mash the Dawgs.  It was mildly annoying, I think his friends were trying to shush him, it was outside the stadium so we weren't sitting near him.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 22, 2024, 11:34:58 AM
The most annoying fan bases will always be your rivals and perhaps some pesky program's fans that occasional manages to beat you, but really is inferior.

I knew quite a few Ohio State fans in Cincy of course, we'd talk football a fair bit.  The ones I knew were good fans.  I still know two of them and carry on about CFB.
Well sure, but these aren't rankings of annoying fan bases by one specific school's fans, these are nationally acknowledged annoying fan bases.

That UT's two biggest rivals are among the top 10, is amusing.  And correct. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 22, 2024, 11:50:04 AM
I presume in such a national poll, the major programs with the largest fan bases will be over represented.  So, OSU fans, being most numerous, probably, would nearly all say Michigan has the most annoying fans.

"Most annoying" doesn't necessarily mean "bad fans".  The fans of a team that routinely beats you can be annoying.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 23, 2024, 08:08:52 PM
U.S. News ranked Omaha as 18th on its list of the best places to live in the United States in 2024.

Great baseball town
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 01:46:38 AM
I was looking on cfreference and their SRS ratings.  I really like it.  It strips away all the crap that doesn't matter and deals only with what happens on the field. 
Who did you play and how did you do?
Many people here seem to think I don't care about results....when that's all I care about.  I care about what a team does and who they do it against.  I don't give a shit how many draft picks they have or star ratings, etc. 
But yes, a win over a good team is better than a win over a bad team.
A blowout is better than a close win.
Best win/worst loss isn't where SOS begins and ends, sorry.
.
All that being said, I listed national champions out by SOS and also listed the highest or next-highest of each season. 
What I like about this is that it doesn't care about legendary status or mystique or even general consensus.
I started with 1966, as integration was happening and the top 3 teams that year were clustered.
.
What do we see?
1971 Nebraska was the best team ever.
What they did vs who they played was #1 of all-time, by a healthy margin.
After them?  There's a cluster.
72 USC, 70 Texas, 70 Nebraska, and 2020 Alabama.
At first I thought it was an era thing, but no, late-60s teams didn't show up here.  There just happened to be a few amazing teams around then.  Plus 20 Bama, with the undefeated, no-cupcakes schedule.
Makes sense. 
74 OU
95 Nebraska
No surprises there.
Another cluster after that:  77 ND, 91 Washington, 01 Miami, 18 Clemson
No big surprises there. 
78 Bama, 04 USC, 66 ND
19 LSU
73 ND, 08 Florida, 22 Georgia
Yeah, 2019 LSU had an all-time great offense, maybe the best ever.  But their defense wasn't great for a NC.  They had a 3-point win.  A 5-point win.  That matters.
05 Texas, 23 Michigan
93 FSU
88 ND, 11 Bama, 12 Bama
.
Okay, that's enough listing them from the top.  The bottom?
By far the worst, c'mon, all together now:  84 BYU
BY FAR.
Next worst?  2002 OSU.  I was ready to comment here about how that team's win over Miami was one of the biggest upsets ever, but turns out 02 Miami wasn't 01 Miami. 
07 LSU.....2 losses, we get it.  Not great.
92 Bama.  Everyone remembers the great D, no one wants to talk about the QB throwing 5 TDs and 14 INTs.
90 CU and 90 GT
80 Georgia
Next worst:  06 Florida, 98 Tennessee, 83 Miami, 97 Michigan, 16 Clemson
Some ranked in the lower third that might surprise you:  85 OU, 67 USC, 66 MSU, 94 Nebraska
.
Okay, now for the non-champs.
By far and away the top non-NC is 1973 OU.  71 OU would be the guess here, and they're 2nd, but it's a big gap. 
Another big gap.
2019 OSU.  Rated above 2019 LSU.  Hmmph.
72 OU, 94 Penn St (robbed and robbed badly)
78 USC, 16 Bama
18 Bama, 81 PSU, 05 USC, 76 Michigan, 08 OU, 68 Texas
77 Bama, 80 Pitt (duh)
Lots of Bamas and OSUs and OUs and USCs litter the list. 
For the lower end:
07 WV....fun team to watch, resume is light in the pants
67 ND, 21 Michigan
84 Florida, 04 Auburn
06 USC, 23 Texas
22 Michigan, 15 OSU
.
Some notes:
80 UGA was 9th in SRS in 1980.  But they had the magical zero in the loss column.
I thought 99 and 13 FSU would rank highly, but they're middle-of-the-pack for NCs.
90 Miami was leaps and bounds ahead of either 90 NC
04 Utah was actually ranked 2nd-best of that season.
BYU winning in 84 was criminal.  The gap between them and the top team that year (Florida) is the same as the gap between 95 Nebraska and 81 Clemson. 
I've never thought much of the 80s Penn St teams, but the NCs rate average and 81 non-NC even higher.  I stand corrected.
I was thinking 86 Miami would be a high non-NC, but they weren't in the top 2 that year (OU ranks ahead of them, despite the h2h loss).  But 88 Miami does rank highly, so 88 Miami > 86 Miami
Similar thing for 95 Florida....95 OSU ranks higher. 
Wisconsin ranks as the #1 team in 2017, so hats off to them.  In that light, they remind me of 2000 OU, with a better RB.
.
Any thoughts?  Criticisms? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2024, 07:34:40 AM
This is a good illustration about another thing about rankings.  Some folks might have a bar discussion obviously over the ten best teams and maybe argue about 4 vs 5.  Most everyone agrees about BYU.  I doubt anyone seriously cares about whether 18 should be 20 or 30 should be 27.  You could throw the teams in the middle of this and stir them up and spit out a random ranking that would be probably OK.  

It resembles these wine point rankings, I think.  A hundred point wine, if properly stored and aged, is going to be good (to most people).  It'll also be expensive likely as not, a grand or more.  But you could take the wines ranked 88 to 92 and randomly mix them and be about as "accurate", especially since this would reflect individual tastes.  (And some aspects of these wine rankings scales are not of much importance to me.)

I don't completely disdain ALL rankings and ratings of course, but I do for most.  I find them either useless, or pointless, or just absurd.  If YOU like something, go for it, don't worry about "rankings".  If enough folks really rave about some beach or some city or some attraction or some steak or restaurant, by all means, try it out and see if you want.

My wife loves the Big Island in Hawaii.  I'd like to visit Kauai some time, she doesn't want to.  We're been to Oahu and Maui, she thinks she's see enough.  OK, fine with me.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2024, 08:01:21 AM
The 1980 UGA team was quite lucky several times, and had that flashy freshman RB who broke off long runs to make highlight videos.  The 1981 team was better IMHO, more balanced.  The more recent UGA champs were pretty legit, in my view.  They still might have lost here and there, almost did at Mizzou, and again with Ohio State.

Even a very good NC team likely caught a break or three, it's the nature of the game.  Had Auburn held on against Bama, UGA probably would have made the playoffs last season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2024, 08:19:40 AM

Next worst:  06 Florida, 98 Tennessee, 83 Miami, 97 Michigan, 16 Clemson
.
Any thoughts?  Criticisms? 
did they also cornsider 97 Nebraska a champ?
and I assume they ranked 97 Nebraska over 97 Michigan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 24, 2024, 08:25:04 AM
Great stuff 'fro.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2024, 08:39:40 AM
yes sir

I'm searching for the page

wondering about 83 Nebraska as a non-champ
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 24, 2024, 09:44:50 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/l0r2AmO.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 11:46:38 AM
This is a good illustration about another thing about rankings.  Some folks might have a bar discussion obviously over the ten best teams and maybe argue about 4 vs 5.  Most everyone agrees about BYU.  I doubt anyone seriously cares about whether 18 should be 20 or 30 should be 27.  You could throw the teams in the middle of this and stir them up and spit out a random ranking that would be probably OK. 
Yes, that's why I shared clusters of teams for the most part.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 24, 2024, 11:48:55 AM
Another ranking, and there is some above, would be "best team not named NC that year".  I can make a solid argument for Pitt in 1980 for example.  I know there are many.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 11:59:00 AM
yes sir

I'm searching for the page

wondering about 83 Nebraska as a non-champ
I went year-by-year.  School year just ended.  I have time to kill.

83 Nebraska doesn't make my list, as they weren't the NC, nor were they the top-rated team (Auburn was, with that schedule).
They rank well above 83 Miami, near the middle of the NCs list....maybe around the 40-45% percentile.
83 Nebraska is in a cluster with 79 Bama and 87 Miami.
If I had to describe them, they'd be a poor man's 19 LSU:  huge O, not great D (for an elite team), but with a weaker schedule.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 12:06:41 PM
2 things:
First, I may be using rankings and ratings interchangeably, and I shouldn't.  SRS is a rating, and I took the time to rank them by their rating.
Second, non-NC 73 OU has a higher rating than 71 Nebraska.  So a non-NC has the highest rating of the last 50-some years. 
.
Those Sooners played 7 top-20 teams.  They tied #1, had a close win vs another, then beat the shit out of the other five.  And destroyed all the unranked opponents as well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 01:16:03 PM
Ranked by rating:
73 OU (non-NC)
71 Nebraska
72 USC
70 Texas
20 Bama
70 Nebraska
71 OU (non-NC)
74 OU
19 OSU (non-NC)
95 Nebraska
cluster: 
77 ND
18 Clemson
91 Warshington
01 Miami
72 OU (non-NC)
94 Penn St (non-NC)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 24, 2024, 04:24:15 PM
You are doing some great work here 'Fro.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 08:14:58 PM
Busy work maybe.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2024, 10:41:33 PM
A fun aspect of SRS is that it has both an offensive and defensive rating. 
I looked at defenses only and did the same exercise as before.  I jotted down whoever the NC's defense rating was as well as whoever the best (or next best if it was the NC's) defenses were.  Here's what I found:
2021 Georgia has the best defense rating ever.  Comfortably ahead of #2.
Remember, this is simply how they performed against who they played.  No style points, no fame or fortune, no draft stock or recruiting stars.  Just the facts, ma'am.

Behind the Dawgs, we have a pair of non-NCs:  85 UM and 72 OU.  Like with the overall ratings, non-NCs are among the best of all-time.

Then there's 2012 Alabama.  The 2011 Tide D had the legendary pass D, but the '12 version was better overall.
Then another pair of non-NCs:  73 OSU and 17 Bama.

We have a cluster after that:  18 Clemson, 11 Bama, 91 Miami
Then 11 LSU, 00 FSU, 16 Bama, 09 Bama, 71 Nebraska, 08 USC
One could make the claim that Saban's defenses during their run of NCs were the best of all time, as a program. 
Close cluster after that:  23 UM, 01 Miami, 97 UM
Yes, this year's Wolverine D rates as good as the 97 unit. 
Small gap.
02 OSU, 93 FSU, 23 OSU, 18 Miss St, 86 OU, 74 UM
.
Some defenses with great reputations that sort of finished down in the 'others receiving votes' level:
2000 OU, 99 FSU, 78 Bama and 92 Bama rate in the lower third of all NCs.  Those surprised me. 

I must mention an all-time great defense across several seasons:  87-88-89 Auburn under Pat Dye.  All non-NCs, but all ranking very highly.  With this quick once-over, they'd be my vote for 2nd-best multi-season defense of all-time.

Nebraska is on both lists (NCs, non-NCs) plenty, so you understand where the Blackshirts notoriety came from. 
1980 Pitt rates a very pedestrian middle ground in the non-NCs list and overall.  That's interesting.

Now for the ugly list:
Worst NC defense rating:  2010 Auburn...which makes what Newton did all the more amazing.
Next-worst raised my eyebrow:  68 OSU. 
03 USC is next.  Wow!
All worse than 84 BYU.  Yeeesh.
Next ugly cluster:  19 LSU, 14 OSU, 07 LSU, 96 Florida
.
Some noteworthy takeaways from non-NC defenses:
22 Iowa is toward the lower end
In 2006, no one had a particularly good defense.  Outlier season.
2020 N'Western's defense rates about the same as their 95 defense.
.
I think teams and fans really take pride in a strong defense, more so than a big O.  I guess that's why I chose this side of the ball first. 
Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 25, 2024, 09:48:31 PM
Ranked by rating:
73 OU (non-NC)
71 Nebraska
72 USC
70 Texas
20 Bama
70 Nebraska
71 OU (non-NC)
74 OU
all early 70s but 20 bama
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on May 26, 2024, 11:31:29 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/xUF78PQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 26, 2024, 12:58:45 PM
all early 70s but 20 bama
Pre-scholarship limits.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2024, 09:22:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/RMSad43.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 27, 2024, 11:24:00 AM


How many "Memorial Stadiums" are in the US?


Ranking all of college football's 'Memorial' stadiums on Memorial Day - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ranking-all-of-college-footballs-memorial-stadiums-on-memorial-day/#:~:text=More than a dozen active college football stadiums,direct tribute to veterans of the armed forces.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 27, 2024, 08:43:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ROUCE6R.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 28, 2024, 04:04:12 PM

Ranking all of college football's 'Memorial' stadiums on Memorial Day - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ranking-all-of-college-footballs-memorial-stadiums-on-memorial-day/#:~:text=More than a dozen active college football stadiums,direct tribute to veterans of the armed forces.)


Quote
"Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium: Everything is bigger in Texas. Not only is Darrell K. Royal Stadium the biggest "Memorial" stadium on our list, but it's one of the top-10 biggest stadiums in the world. First opened in 1924, the stadium has been expanded several times and rededicated in 1977 to the memory of all alumni who lost their lives in American wars."


This is incorrect.  It's actually dedicated to all Texans who lost their lives in American wars.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 28, 2024, 04:15:40 PM
Am I a Texan if I was born there and was immediately whisked away?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on May 28, 2024, 04:19:15 PM
Am I a Texan if I was born there and was immediately whisked away?
I believe that's apostasy and they may kill you for it. 

Texasism being the dominant religion in that country. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 28, 2024, 05:34:19 PM
It sure as shit is.
.
I'm just a Floridian lost in the desert.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on May 28, 2024, 05:43:26 PM
Am I a Texan if I was born there and was immediately whisked away?
For the purposes of the Memorial?  Probably.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 28, 2024, 08:52:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/omOknzh.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 28, 2024, 11:04:06 PM
Best Marines Movie🍿🍷
1. The Wall (II) (2017)
2. Hard Kill (2020)
3. Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016)
4. Kill, Die, Laugh (2017)
5. A Grunt's Life (2019)
6. We, the Marines (2017)
7. Dead Sea (2014)
8. Devil Dogs (2017)
9. You're the Enemy: Welcome Back! (2014)
10. Saber Rock (2017)
11. War Brides of Japan (2018)
12. Gentleman Warrior Self Defense System Volume 3, (2016)
13. The Man in the Cowboy Hat (2016)
14. Dream & Play (2022)
15. The Field (2014)
16. Garden of the Peaceful Dragon (2019)
17. Royal (2017)
18. War Brides of Japan, a documentary: The Brides (2019)
19. War Brides of Japan, a documentary: The Culture (2019)
20. War Brides of Japan, a documentary: Herstory (2019)
21. War Brides of Japan, a documentary: BFF's; Buddhist Friends Forever (2019)
22. We'll Always Have Parris (2016)
23. Excuse My Accent (2020)
24. Parris Island 100 Years: We Make Marines (2015)
25. War Brides of Japan, a documentary: The Kids (2019)
26. NCR Marines: NCR Special Forces (2021)
27. Military History Visualized (2016)
28. Florida Road Trip (Central Florida Roadtrip) (2017)
29. Ukraine on Fire 2 (2022)
30. The Toys That Made Us (2017–2019)
31. Halo (2022)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 29, 2024, 08:04:27 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/p203pQW.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 29, 2024, 08:13:29 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/pnAjSTg.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on May 29, 2024, 06:38:44 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/SwSTLqc.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 03, 2024, 10:25:59 AM
https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-football-espn-football-power-index-2024-season/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0lfgm9uq2ALz7bkW37RKXp4exls6xffKCPSjcMnSIMUCwo6Kh88Rhamp0_aem_AbBb9BXAxbpMRZylPglk2V7KXes0jOwt7EehgtecTPzmBK-JDPKyL3GA659KmM-jiub28k2wlUXXVyH-kvBRUcj3 (https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-football-espn-football-power-index-2024-season/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0lfgm9uq2ALz7bkW37RKXp4exls6xffKCPSjcMnSIMUCwo6Kh88Rhamp0_aem_AbBb9BXAxbpMRZylPglk2V7KXes0jOwt7EehgtecTPzmBK-JDPKyL3GA659KmM-jiub28k2wlUXXVyH-kvBRUcj3)

Huskers

FPI Score: 4.8

Overall Rank: 41st

Projected Win Total: 6.5-5.5

Bowl Eligibility: 69.3%
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 03, 2024, 11:59:27 AM
https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-football-espn-football-power-index-2024-season/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0lfgm9uq2ALz7bkW37RKXp4exls6xffKCPSjcMnSIMUCwo6Kh88Rhamp0_aem_AbBb9BXAxbpMRZylPglk2V7KXes0jOwt7EehgtecTPzmBK-JDPKyL3GA659KmM-jiub28k2wlUXXVyH-kvBRUcj3 (https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-football-espn-football-power-index-2024-season/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0lfgm9uq2ALz7bkW37RKXp4exls6xffKCPSjcMnSIMUCwo6Kh88Rhamp0_aem_AbBb9BXAxbpMRZylPglk2V7KXes0jOwt7EehgtecTPzmBK-JDPKyL3GA659KmM-jiub28k2wlUXXVyH-kvBRUcj3)

Huskers

FPI Score: 4.8

Overall Rank: 41st

Projected Win Total: 6.5-5.5

Bowl Eligibility: 69.3%

Bro, use the 'description' box when posting a link.

FPI: Nebraska (https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-football-espn-football-power-index-2024-season/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0lfgm9uq2ALz7bkW37RKXp4exls6xffKCPSjcMnSIMUCwo6Kh88Rhamp0_aem_AbBb9BXAxbpMRZylPglk2V7KXes0jOwt7EehgtecTPzmBK-JDPKyL3GA659KmM-jiub28k2wlUXXVyH-kvBRUcj3)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 03, 2024, 12:12:28 PM
Sorry dude 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 03, 2024, 01:10:03 PM
It's for the good of the board and only takes a moment.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 03, 2024, 10:15:39 PM
Remember when Fro couldn't figure out how to post a picture for like
It's for the good of the board and only takes a moment.

Didn't it take you like ten years to figure out how to post a pic? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 06, 2024, 10:39:46 PM
The 30 Best Burgers You Can Find In America

https://futurelad.com/trending/best-burgers-america-syn/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=Best+Burgers+CRT+Beryz2812+V2+Dynamic+FL+PHS623+CRT+9cea+-+Unknown+USA+FB+CRT&network_code=CRT&utm_term=content&v=10&site_code=FL&hashed_lean_url=3a5f62c37f3416e59d8a2ecf088e109b&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120208752813870599&ppc=1&c1=120208752805640599&c2=120208752806110599&c3=120208752813870599&utm_id=120208752805640599&fbclid=IwAR1C2K1nkjmK5E-KZOMZdVqajxhTUyxgBV_Hc1AK0TGqqFHHEWmR4_nykSQ_aem_AcbxHy-kB3z_9Xt_Ay8ESL1DH5-yB4BPILwvvKdlEMuEInfYFpQ5dcgGviDegjRoN7-ondYTn9LwLz4MEMd-deNF&r=1#section-1 (https://futurelad.com/trending/best-burgers-america-syn/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=Best+Burgers+CRT+Beryz2812+V2+Dynamic+FL+PHS623+CRT+9cea+-+Unknown+USA+FB+CRT&network_code=CRT&utm_term=content&v=10&site_code=FL&hashed_lean_url=3a5f62c37f3416e59d8a2ecf088e109b&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120208752813870599&ppc=1&c1=120208752805640599&c2=120208752806110599&c3=120208752813870599&utm_id=120208752805640599&fbclid=IwAR1C2K1nkjmK5E-KZOMZdVqajxhTUyxgBV_Hc1AK0TGqqFHHEWmR4_nykSQ_aem_AcbxHy-kB3z_9Xt_Ay8ESL1DH5-yB4BPILwvvKdlEMuEInfYFpQ5dcgGviDegjRoN7-ondYTn9LwLz4MEMd-deNF&r=1#section-1)

Fred’s Meat & Bread – Atlanta, Georgia

The name is kind of an understatement – Fred’s Meat & Bread offers way more than just…well, “meat and bread.” This small eatery in Krog Street Market, Atlanta claims to make sandwiches, but in reality, they are mostly burgers.

The joint offers a diverse range of burgers, inspired by food from around the world, starting from Spain to Vietnam. You can choose to go for a Korean cheesesteak or an Italian grinder, or even stick with your classic Bacon Cheeseburger. Whatever you choose, Fred will not disappoint.

Triple XXX – West Lafayette, Indiana

Triple XXX might call itself a family restaurant, but it’s much more than that – it is what makes Purdue students feel at home. The menu does its best to reflect this as well, by naming dishes after Purdue athletes – so, you can grab yourself The Bernie Flowers All-Pro or enjoy The Ashley Burkhardt.

The first drive-in restaurant in Indiana, this is a popular choice for families too – thanks to their hand-cut sirloin beef patties and amazing onion rings.

Nation Kitchen & Bar – Cincinnati, Ohio

Nation probably wins the award for the “Most Humorous Establishment Name” – deriving its name from the temperance movement advocate Carrie Nation, who opposed the prevalence of intoxicating beverages, even before the Prohibition. Despite the irony, Nation offers truly some of the best drinks and burgers in America.

Pool Burger — Austin, Texas

There are plenty of awesome spots to have burgers in Austin, Texas, and Pool Burger is right at the top of the list. It seems to have a tiki bar thing going on inside the 1968 Airstream trailer that this burger joint is located in. Austin people flock from all over to try out their eight different burgers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 07, 2024, 04:11:50 AM
Remember when Fro couldn't figure out how to post a picture for like
Didn't it take you like ten years to figure out how to post a pic?
It was inconsistent.  Sometimes dragging one onto the page worked and sometimes it didn't.

And instead of making fun of him, I'm making a request and modeled it for him.

Kind of a big difference, no?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 07, 2024, 09:54:49 AM
Pool Burger is quite good, but it's not even the best burger in Austin.  I'd put it at 5 or 6 probably.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2024, 10:03:43 AM
I have not tried the place in ATL.  It's probably good enough I'd guess.  It's really not that hard to make a good burger obviously.

We like Grindhouse Killer Burgers, and Farm Burger is pretty good too.  Both are quite a bit better than Shake Shack IMHO (which is a block away from us).

Farm Burger used to have "burger and a beer" for $10, it's now $11.  Not bad, these days.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2024, 10:04:50 AM
I saw some ranking of "iconic" college football venues.  I didn't click on it, I'm not sure what they even mean by iconic, whatever.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 07, 2024, 10:06:05 AM
relating to or of the nature of an icon; regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 07, 2024, 01:48:29 PM
Good to see two of the Watt boys on this list.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 07, 2024, 02:33:16 PM
The Rose Bowl and the Cotton Bowl are iconic college football venues.

Beyond those, I suppose it's a list of university-owned stadiums that meet some combination of criteria related to the age of the venue, as well as the general success of the program that plays there.

I expect the usual suspects would make up that list, just look at the Top 10 all time winning programs for example.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2024, 03:43:05 PM
Yup, I'd put the Rose and Cotton as high on any "iconic" list, and then I'd probably look at old stadia.  Grant Field here is old, ancient in fact, and broken down and hardly what I'd call iconic.  The B1G has a lot of them I'd consider iconic I think, and ND, and probably Texas.  Sanford Stadium dates from 1929, it probably makes the second ten.

West Point is iconic I think.  There might be some lesser known program with an iconic stadium I can't think of.  Eastern Michigan?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 07, 2024, 03:46:05 PM
Camp Randall. 1917. Pretty old "new" stadium. Still doing "upgrades" and reducing capacity.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 07, 2024, 03:51:55 PM
Nippert Stadium in Cincy dates back a long way, a century or more depending on where you start it.  I don't think of it as iconic other than old.

It's a weird metric to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 07, 2024, 07:26:07 PM
Iconic stadia.....historic (not necessarily old) + unique aspect + hosted a strong program (at one time or another) + Extra Credit:  a nickname
The Horseshoe (shape, historic, strong program)
The Big House (massive w/ no separate tiers/levels, historic, strong program)
The Coliseum 
The Swamp
Between the Hedges
Saturday Night in Tiger Stadium
Death Valley
Camp Randall (Jump Around)
Beaver Stadium (White Out)
The Old Orange Bowl

If you are in a stadium or hear its name, it conjures multiple images.  That's iconic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2024, 07:14:52 AM
I would personally add Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Mitchie, Iowa, Auburn, Washington ... maybe a few others, but the term, to me, is not very clear, so any ranking will also be personal preference.

I'm not sure it means just where teams that have been recently good play.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 08, 2024, 08:39:36 AM
The History
Camp Randall Stadium and its grounds had a rich history prior to its affiliation with Wisconsin athletics.
In the days before the Civil War, the site was owned by the Wisconsin Agricultural Society, which held its annual state fair on the grounds. 
When hostilities broke out in 1861, the society gave the land to the government for a major military training center. More than 70,000 troops attended training drills at the Camp Randall complex.
After peace was restored nationally, the land was returned to state fair property. The fair later moved to Milwaukee, and Wisconsin's Civil War veterans urged the legislature to purchase the land. In 1893, the state presented the site to the university as a memorial athletic field.


Intercollegiate athletics began on campus in 1881, and football joined the scene in 1889. The first games were played on the lower part of campus. The stadium was built at its present site in 1913. A tragic collapse of the wooden bleachers in 1915 prompted the UW to make plans for concrete stands.


 | Early History of Camp Randall (https://uwbadgers.com/sports/2015/08/21/GEN_20140101392.aspx)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2024, 08:46:43 AM
Here's a case for "iconic" with a program that has been historically decent, but isn't today.  Is this place iconic?  It's old, and pretty run down in my view.

Cozily nestled in the shadow of Atlanta’s skyline, Bobby Dodd Stadium at Hyundai Field is easily one of the nation’s most unique and historic settings for college football. The venerable facility — the oldest on-campus stadium in NCAA Division I FBS — opened in 1913 and 2023 will be its 111th season as the home of Georgia Tech football.
The Georgia Tech students who built the stadium more than 100 years ago wouldn’t recognize the home of Tech football if they saw it now. Not only has the skyline around the stadium changed dramatically, but the facility has steadily grown and improved during its rich history. Today’s Bobby Dodd Stadium seats 55,000 fans in a modern, comfortable facility that embraces the tradition that has made Tech’s venerable stadium a cornerstone of college football for more than a century. It is located in the heart of Georgia Tech’s midtown Atlanta campus, bordered by Techwood Drive on the east, North Avenue on the south and Bobby Dodd Way on the north.
Tech actually began playing football on the site in 1905, but in 1913, the original concrete west stands were largely built by Tech students and seated 5,600. The concrete east stands were completed in time for the 1924 season. A year later, the south stands were finished, bringing the seating capacity of the horseshoe-shaped stadium to approximately 30,000. The west stands were rebuilt in 1944 to up capacity to 44,000, followed by the addition of stands in the north end zone in 1958 and upper decks on the east (1962) and west sides (1968), which brought the stadium’s capacity to an all-time high of 58,121. Stadium capacity dipped to 46,000 in 1985 following the removal of seats in the south end zone to make way for the Wardlaw Center, but after a major renovation project from 2001-03, which included bowling in and adding an upper deck to the north end of the facility, capacity moved to its current 55,000.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2024, 08:58:32 AM
Memorial Stadium was built after a now legendary fund raising effort conducted by the Nebraska Alumni Association.

When Roscoe Pound returned to Lincoln from attending law school at Harvard, he encouraged students at the University of Nebraska to embrace the exciting new sport of football. Pound witnessed the Harvard and Yale game in 1889 and was fascinated with the game, and with the enthusiasm it generated. Chancellor Canfield also encouraged the sport, seeing it as a means of building public good will for the University. Within a few years, football fever had seized the citizens of the state. An organized team was in place as early as 1890, and was formalized with a volunteer coach within a year.

Earliest organized football games held on the University campus were played on the first field which ran parallel to 10th street within the original campus boundaries. When D B Brace planned his new Physics Laboratory in 1904, the footprint of the building plan was altered so as not to interfere with the playing field. Once the building was constructed, it became apparent that it cramped the field and limited space for the growing number of fans. Consequently, the new Mechanical Engineering Laboratories (Richards Hall) was built on the north end of the old field a few years later, and another, larger, parcel of land was purchased to the north of T street in 1908. This would become the site of Nebraska Field, and later, Memorial Stadium.

Unlike Memorial Stadium, Nebraska Field was oriented from east to west. A covered grandstand was located on the north side of the field along U street, uncovered bleachers backed up to T street on the south. This field served the football team until 1923, when Memorial Stadium was quickly constructed on the same site, which had expanded to the north. Many now famous games were played on the old field, including the 1922 defeat of Notre Dame, against Knute Rockne's Four Horsemen, although the name wasn't applied to them until the 1924 season. Notre Dame's George "the Gipper" Gipp competed againt the Cornhuskers, and was victorious, in 1920. The great Guy Chamberlain, collegiate All American and Pro Football Hall of Famer from Blue Springs, Nebraska, played exclusively on the old Nebraska Field.

Talk of improved athletic facilities had started before the first World War. By 1922 the demand for tickets to football games was so great that the Alumni Association embarked on a massive fundraising campaign to build a new stadium. During the post WWI era, many universities were building memorials to fallen soldiers, including many stadiums. Kansas had completed a new stadium just a year before. Cal's new stadium was said to be worth a million dollars, with a seating capacity of 72,000. Nebraska students and alumni wanted to build a memorial of their own.

By spring, 1923, the Nebraska Memorial Association, an incorporated building committee of the Nebraska Alumni Association, had enough pledges and cash on hand to commence with the building of the stadium. George Holmes, President of First National Bank, took a risk and backed the Alumni Association with a loan secured only with student and citizen pledges, and future gate receipts. Ground breaking ceremonies took place in the rain on April 26, 1923, with Chancellor Avery plowing the earth with a team of horses. In June the cornerstone laying ceremony was held during Round Up, the annual alumni event. By October, the stadium was ready for its first game, played against Oklahoma, which Nebraska won, 24-0. The following week on Oct. 20, the Stadium was dedicated during Homecoming festivities, and Nebraska and Kansas tied, 0-0. CR Richard, former Dean of Engineering and President of Lehigh University, gave the Dedication address.

The Alumni Association selected two architecture firms to desgin the stadium. John Latenser Jr, whose father had designed the Temple building twenty years earlier, represented John Latenser and Sons of Omaha and Ellery Davis, a partner in Davis & Wilson. Both Davis and Latenser donated their services, saving approximately $25,000 on costs. Both architects, along with Earl Hawkins of Parsons Construction Co., who also served as construction supervisor, were honored at a large banquet following the first season.

Originally the Alumni Association intended to build a larger and more elaborate structure which would serve not only as a stadium, but also a gymnasium, war museum, and gathering place for veterans, all at a cost of one million dollars. By 1922 it became clear that this was an unrealistic goal, given that the legislature had voted to cut the $250,000 appropriation made ealier in the session. A new and more realistic goal of $450,000 was set, and all of it was to be raised through donations.

Inscribed on the four corners of the stadium are the following words, written by former UNL professor of philosophy Hartley Burr Alexander:

Southeast: "In Commemoration of the men of Nebraska who served and fell in the Nations Wars."
Southwest: "Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory."
Northwest: "Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."
Northeast: "Their Lives they held their countrys trust; They kept its faith; They died its heroes."

The stadium site consisted of only the east and west stands for over twenty years. In the 1940's the Field House was completed, and in the 1960s a series of expansions began that increased the Stadium's capacity to over 70,000. In 2006 the most recent expansion, including the Osborne Athletic Complex, was completed, increasing the Stadium capacity to over 81,000.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 08, 2024, 05:07:35 PM
The name Bobby Dodd is more iconic than the stadium, because GT has done jack shit in football.  Even their only NC was just 'meh'.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 08, 2024, 06:00:51 PM
My guess is that 95%+ of CFB fans, if you asked them the name of Purdue's stadium, would have no clue. 

And that 90%+, if you asked them what school played in Ross-Ade Stadium, would have no clue. 

And that 50%+ of Big Ten fans, at least, also couldn't answer either question. 

So I'd say it's about the antonym of iconic. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 08, 2024, 06:29:41 PM
who's  Ross-Ade??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 08, 2024, 06:32:21 PM
Pharmacy.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 08, 2024, 08:19:55 PM
My guess is that 95%+ of CFB fans, if you asked them the name of Purdue's stadium, would have no clue.

And that 90%+, if you asked them what school played in Ross-Ade Stadium, would have no clue.

And that 50%+ of Big Ten fans, at least, also couldn't answer either question.

So I'd say it's about the antonym of iconic.
I was thinking Ross-Ade could have some cache, with all the upsets the Boilers have had.  But I guess it doesn't really measure up to just being really good over time.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2024, 08:11:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/xr7ZD6q.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 09, 2024, 08:13:55 AM
a fool and his money
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 09, 2024, 08:14:55 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/co473tu.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2024, 08:47:48 AM
Quite a few professors back when at UGA hailed from Yale, so the two schools played several times in the '20s.  The last time was the first game played at the then new Sanford Stadium in 1929.  The stadium resides in a natural valley, over a creek actually, between what now is North and South Campus and is oriented E-W.  There was a RR track embankment on the east end where folks would sit for free, called the Track People, known for being rowdy.  It would get packed for big games.  The west end is open today and a bridge is now present affording an open view into the stadium.  I walked across said bridge often going from North to South campus, the former being the old part mostly nonscience stuff and the latter being sciency and math and newer.  There is resistance to closing in the wast end as it would take away that view, for what it's worth.  As with many older stadia, the improvements today are mostly around making bathrooms and luxoboxes nicer.

(https://i.imgur.com/LLz9tAM.png)+

Yale was a powerhouse of college football from the 1870’s, up until the 1930’s. They even claim 27 National Championships as they, with Princeton, were the sport’s first dynasties. But through their relationship with Georgia, Yale in many ways passed the torch to UGA.
By the late 1920’s, the debate about scholarships in college athletics had reached a boiling point. Four factions comprised this debate. Some schools, including Georgia, wanted to build teams with scholarships, regardless of a prospects grades and test scores.
Other schools, including Yale, wanted to maintain a high academic standard for who they rewarded scholarships to. The last factions wanted to keep scholarships out of athletics, or at least not offer full ride’s to student athletes.

The results of this debate changed the course of college football. It directly led to the formation of the SEC in 1932, and a new batch of powerhouses taking over through the 1920’s and 30’s. The Ivy League and other academic-minded schools no longer controlled the sport. Now, champions were built through competitive recruiting.
In 1927, Georgia found its first major success in the evolving college football climate. After getting whipped by Yale in four games from 1923-to-1926, the Bulldogs upset Yale 14-10 on the road in 1927. Both teams went on to claim a share of the National Championship for that season.
Yale got their revenge in 1928, and in 1929 they traveled to Athens for the first time to play the first game in the new Sanford Stadium. Georgia upset Yale again 15-0. Georgia won the next four meetings, all in New Haven.

In many ways, to understand the evolution of college football in this era, you only need to look at the Georgia vs. Yale series. Beginning in the early 1920’s when Georgia was a southern powerhouse, but when Yale was a national powerhouse. Yale owned the series.

Then, Georgia won their first national title as Yale won one of their last. And the series ended with Georgia riding into a new era of college football known for recruiting, big stadiums and rabid fan bases. while Yale faded into the background with other Ivy League schools still clinging to their beliefs that all schools shouldn’t lower academic requirements for athletic success.




Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 09, 2024, 09:15:03 AM
When Roscoe Pound returned to Lincoln from attending law school at Harvard, he encouraged students at the University of Nebraska to embrace the exciting new sport of football. Pound witnessed the Harvard and Yale game in 1889 and was fascinated with the game, and with the enthusiasm it generated.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2024, 09:46:18 AM
World’s 50 Best Restaurants for 2024 revealed | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/travel/worlds-50-best-restaurants-for-2024/index.html)

Ah yes, one of my favorite rankings, just behind wine rankings and points.

I'm fairly certain these places serve "art", more than food.  You get a bite or two of something elegantly presented.  Whether it tastes good or not is a bit of an aside, I suspect, and if you like it a lot, never fear, something different is about to appear and you may never get to taste that item again.

My experience at a "3 star" was of course a major disappointment, and I didn't expect all that much.  I'd rather go to Fox Bros. and have pulled pork and Brunswick stew and fried okra with a slice of loaf bread.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 09, 2024, 10:01:22 AM
OK, I clicked on it.

Just to see how many were in the US

2??

NYC isn't high on my list of places to visit
I suppose I could make it to Healdsburg with the daughters in January, but won't be spending that type of change on a meal.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2024, 10:05:32 AM
DINE WITH US

In the heart of downtown Healdsburg, one of the country’s most accomplished Chefs Kyle Connaughton, along with Head Farmer Katina Connaughton, bring you SingleThread; a 3 Michelin-Star Restaurant with five luxurious guest rooms.
SingleThread’s focus is to provide its guests with an unparalleled hospitality experience in the center of Sonoma Wine Country.
Book a Dining Experience  (https://www.exploretock.com/singlethreadfarms/)
Availability is released on the 1st of every month for the following month - sign up for our newsletter (https://www.singlethreadfarms.com/newsletter/signup) to get notified when we update availability. 


They don't post a menu, as expected.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 09, 2024, 10:22:04 AM
We attended a pretty neat concert last night.  It was well received by the audience, I thought, my wife said she enjoyed it as much as any she'd ever attended.  I was musing about this versus some fancy restaurant.  In a concert of this ilk, you might hear a passage you really like, and usually there is a reprise, maybe in a different key or with different instruments, a change, but the same, and you get to enjoy it again, and maybe several times through the piece.

With these fancy restaurants, you might get a bite or two of something you really like, and then, it's gone.  You get another bite of something very different that you might not like nearly as much.

In contrast to a "regular" restaurant, if you order steak, or fish, or chicken, and it's really good, it's really good for the next 30 minutes or so, maybe it gets slightly cold, whatever.  Of course, if it's not good ...

We stopped off on the way back at a place we like and I had a clam linguini meal, it was good, and there was a nice portion size.

Nathalie Stutzmann + "The Ring Without Words" | Midtown Atlanta (https://www.midtownatl.com/do/nathalie-stutzmann-the-ring-without-words)

(The original piece apparently is 15 hours long, this wasn't that.)

A Beginner’s Guide to Wagner’s RING Cycle | Lyric Opera of Chicago (https://www.lyricopera.org/lyric-lately/beginners-guide-wagner-ring-cycle/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 10, 2024, 04:24:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/FRTfgY8.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 10, 2024, 04:48:52 PM
Florida had something like 33 straight seasons of .500 or better. 
Those were the days.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 10, 2024, 04:55:31 PM
Solich spoiled a helluva run in 2002

started in 1962
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 10, 2024, 09:42:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/sFOzLXF.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 07:23:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/sDsuLeY.png)

These are kinda funny to me since we really don't know for sure how good their opponents will be, so it's kind of a preseason ranking obviously, and based on "FPI" (which seems useless to me).  I'm curious why no B1G teams warranted inclusion, nearly all of these are SEC teams but one.  Maybe 9 is a mistake?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 07:47:00 AM
no big 10 teams because the 4 PAC teams joining watered down the scedules

Maybe #9 is a mistake - the guy doing the ranking might not be aware that #9 is NOT an SEC school
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 09:03:36 AM
GT's schedule is hard because it doesn't get to play GT.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 09:29:28 AM
Atlanta named 8th-best city to have a staycation, study finds (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-best-city-staycation-study?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2cxbro1dwvj8IlDLzU3hI8s2vWfm6k0aNMiII85POGtyzO70EpKz-SZ-8_aem_Ab3FlGHuq71ip5XohCD84SHn4rv0oAjbkBtT7g67GpxPYmCeTx2Nb5GISR3-8lOO5VI26HZe7Dr3vuX87ilL2fvd)

Best & Worst Cities for Staycations in 2024 (wallethub.com) (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-for-staycations/4341)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 09:31:09 AM
Best Places for a Staycation


[th]Overall Rank [/th]
[th]City[/th]
[th]Total Score [/th]
[th]Recreation Rank [/th]
[th]Food & Entertainment Rank [/th]
[th]Rest & Relaxation Rank [/th]
1Orlando, FL61.8524118
2Honolulu, HI60.9211786
3Cincinnati, OH60.791487
4Las Vegas, NV60.7233211
5Tampa, FL58.3840133
6Chicago, IL57.5051667
7San Diego, CA57.2362330
8Atlanta, GA56.2116970
9New Orleans, LA55.9734451
10Tucson, AZ55.70251814
11St. Louis, MO55.5850339
12Scottsdale, AZ55.0746252
13Charleston, SC54.95262424
14Salt Lake City, UT54.5273838
15Denver, CO53.85152273



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 09:41:53 AM
don't staycation in Texas, It's horrible!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 09:55:07 AM
I obviously lived in Cincinnati some 38 years.  As a "staycation" place, I wouldn't list it any different from Pittsburg or Columbus, OH or St. Louis, or many other cities.

But such rankings obviously are dependent both on the criteria chosen as metrics and how they are "metrified".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 11, 2024, 10:17:31 AM
Orlando ranked #1 for "Food & Entertainment"? I thought Orlando was basically just mediocre chain restaurants and Disney. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 10:20:18 AM
That was my experience in Orlando, nearly all chain restaurants.  I found one indie sports bar that was "OK".  I don't think they have any mid to high end indie places, maybe downtown.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 11:26:58 AM
Orlando has a lot of high-end independent restaurants. It's only been in the last 15 or so years but it is on the rise as a food city.

Orlando MICHELIN Restaurants - The MICHELIN Guide (https://guide.michelin.com/en/us/florida/orlando/restaurants?sort=distance)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 11:38:54 AM
Do not give even one half of one rat's ass about michelin starred restaurants, especially as some measure of the quality of food in a city.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 11:57:05 AM
me either

and I wouldn't travel through the Orlando airport for the best food in the state

the crowd of bawlin kids with mouse ears is a turnoff
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 12:00:01 PM
Do not give even one half of one rat's ass about michelin starred restaurants, especially as some measure of the quality of food in a city.


It's just one indicator.

DDD has been through a number of times. Another indicator.

20 Best Food Cities in the U.S., Ranked | Far & Wide (farandwide.com) (https://www.farandwide.com/s/best-foodie-cities-usa-4e6c11276e6c4b18) Another indicator.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 12:08:29 PM
I would guess there are plenty of good places to eat in a place as large as Orlando

just gotta stay away from the tourist areas with all the chains

try the other side of the tracks, especially for BBQ and Mexican
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 12:16:46 PM
It's just one indicator.

DDD has been through a number of times. Another indicator.

20 Best Food Cities in the U.S., Ranked | Far & Wide (farandwide.com) (https://www.farandwide.com/s/best-foodie-cities-usa-4e6c11276e6c4b18) Another indicator.
Well this one might actually be legit-- they do identify THIS dish as "the thing to eat in Chicago."


(https://i.imgur.com/xaz4RER.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 12:18:25 PM
We were staying in a touristy area in Orlando, Buena Vista I think it was, I couldn't find a decent indy restaurant anywhere inside ten miles.

There were some ethnic places that were OK, but I was looking for a bit upscale.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 12:19:09 PM
If you're gonna be in Chicago, sure, why not? Just note that 90 percent of Chicago folks prefer cracker thin crust, cut into squares.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 12:20:36 PM
As for the Michelin stars, they give them using criteria most of us don't care much about.  Most here would go to a hole in the wall if it was sanitary and good (and Michelin has given stars to food trucks and street foodies).  One of the one star places here I've been to twice is quite good, and quite pricey.

I think the only real way to assess a place is to dine there a few times, unless once is enough.  We've dined at one place near us five times, four times it was great, one time it was awful (service issues).  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 12:20:41 PM
If you're gonna be in Chicago, sure, why not? Just note that 90 percent of Chicago folks prefer cracker thin crust, cut into squares.
Yankees like dumb things.  This is not news to me. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 12:51:53 PM
me either

and I wouldn't travel through the Orlando airport for the best food in the state

the crowd of bawlin kids with mouse ears is a turnoff
It's not the best in the State. I'd rather go to Sarasota, Tampa/St. Pete or the Palm Beaches. Or stay right here.

My favorite place is in Fort Lauderdale, but that traffic.. Miami traffic too. Ugly. But great food cities.


Rustic Inn (https://www.rusticinn.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 12:54:47 PM
Ate at a couple of great places in St. Pete whilst visiting my sister in Florida many years ago.  They were not chain restaurants.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 01:04:53 PM
spent a couple Orange Bowl trips in Fort Lauderdale back in the 90's

also spent a week long vacation in St. Pete's

I found great food and fun in both spots

I didn't enjoy the Disney trip to Orlando as much, for many reasons

I attended a convention at the Rosen Shingle Creek Resort and played some golf.
That was OK besides the time at the airport

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 11, 2024, 01:17:59 PM
I did find two pretty decent restaurants in Carlsbad, CA, as I noted.  They weren't exceptional, but they were good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 03:03:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/t7BRlPO.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 03:05:26 PM
It's up in the sky. I don't like using it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 03:10:55 PM
at least it looks solid

the bridges over the bay in San Fran are spooky, way up in the air and they have earthquakes!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 11, 2024, 03:49:44 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/t7BRlPO.jpeg)
It's not scary, it's just different, because everything else in FL is completely flat.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 03:54:47 PM
well, us simple folks from the midwest are used to our bridges being flat
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 04:24:27 PM
I hate this one in Baton Rouge:

(https://i.imgur.com/f2cD70J.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 04:32:19 PM
And then there's this awful-looking one in SE Texas, I've never been over it, thankfully:

(https://i.imgur.com/4yqs2oc.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 04:36:19 PM
some engineers just gotta over engineer stuff to be special
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 04:39:29 PM
I don't like bridges.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 04:43:28 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0keghMB.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 04:46:27 PM
Double decker bridges, oof.  That makes me think about the 1989 earthquake in Oakland and subsequent bridge collapse that killed a bunch of people.  I'm not going to post it, I can't even look at those pictures.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 04:47:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QBlf3O3.png)

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 11, 2024, 04:55:43 PM
Eshima-Ohashi Bride in Japan:

[img width=342.992 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/scnK8Qk.png[/img]

(yeah, yeah, I know this is actually a result of perspective distortion)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 11, 2024, 05:12:17 PM
I don't like bridges.
No bridges, no dams...

Seems like you REALLY like boats tho! Are you just trying to make everyone else ride boats like you? Ferries over waterways instead of bridges? :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 11, 2024, 05:28:06 PM
There are so many bridges here. It's unavoidable no matter where you go.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 11, 2024, 11:17:47 PM
2024 James Beard Award winners

Restaurant and Chef Awards (2024 finalists and winners)
Outstanding Restaurateur
Hamissi Mamba and Nadia Nijimbere, Baobab Fare, Detroit, MI

Quynh-Vy and Yenvy Pham, Phở Bắc Súp Shop, Phởcific Standard Time, and The Boat, Seattle, WA

Chris Viaud, Greenleaf, Ansanm, and Pavilion, Milford and Wolfeboro, NH

Hollis Wells Silverman, Eastern Point Collective (The Duck & The Peach, Méli, The Wells, and others), Washington, D.C.

WINNER: Erika Whitaker and Kelly Whitaker, ID EST (The Wolf’s Tailor, BRUTØ, Basta, and others), Boulder, CO

Outstanding Chef
Sarah Minnick, Lovely’s Fifty Fifty, Portland, OR

Dean Neff, Seabird, Wilmington, NC

WINNER: Michael Rafidi, Albi, Washington, D.C.

Renee Touponce, The Port of Call, Mystic, CT

David Uygur, Lucia, Dallas, TX

Outstanding Restaurant
The Compound, Santa Fe, NM

Convenience West, Marfa, TX

WINNER: Langbaan, Portland, OR

Mixtli, San Antonio, TX

Vestige, Ocean Springs, MS

Emerging Chef
Fariyal Abdullahi, Hav & Mar, New York, NY

Janet Becerra, Pancita, Seattle, WA

Nikko Cagalanan, Kultura, Charleston, SC

Ryan Fernandez, Southern Junction, Buffalo, NY

WINNER: Masako Morishita, Perry’s, Washington, D.C.

Best New Restaurant
Bar Bacetto, Waitsburg, WA

Barbs-B-Q, Lockhart, TX

Chez Noir, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

Comfort Kitchen, Dorchester, MA

WINNER: Dakar NOLA, New Orleans, LA

Hayward, McMinnville, OR

Kaya, Orlando, FL

Kisser, Nashville, TN

Oro by Nixta, Minneapolis, MN

Shan, Bozeman, MT

Outstanding Bakery
The Burque Bakehouse, Albuquerque, NM

Gusto Bread, Long Beach, CA

JinJu Patisserie, Portland, OR

Mel the Bakery, Hudson, NY

WINNER: ZU Bakery, Portland, ME

Outstanding Pastry Chef or Baker
Susan Bae, Moon Rabbit, Washington, D.C.

Jesus Brazon and Manuel Brazon, Caracas Bakery, Doral and Miami, FL

WINNER: Atsuko Fujimoto, Norimoto Bakery, Portland, ME

Crystal Kass, Valentine, Phoenix, AZ

Anna Posey, Elske, Chicago, IL

Outstanding Hospitality
Crawford and Son, Raleigh, NC

Gemma, Dallas, TX

WINNER: Lula Cafe, Chicago, IL

Melba’s, New York, NY

Woodford Food & Beverage, Portland, ME

Outstanding Wine and Other Beverages Program
WINNER: Lula Drake Wine Parlour, Columbia, SC

The Morris, San Francisco, CA

Strong Water Anaheim, Anaheim, CA

Tail Up Goat, Washington, D.C.

Waxlight Bar à Vin, Buffalo, NY

Outstanding Bar
Barr Hill Cocktail Bar, Montpelier, VT

Clavel Mezcaleria, Baltimore, MD

WINNER: Jewel of the South, New Orleans, LA

Las Ramblas, Brownsville, TX

Pacific Cocktail Haven, San Francisco, CA

BEST CHEFS (by region)
Best Chef: California
Geoff Davis, Burdell, Oakland, CA

Rogelio Garcia, Auro, Calistoga, CA

WINNER: Lord Maynard Llera, Kuya Lord, Los Angeles, CA

Tara Monsod, Animae, San Diego, CA

Buu “Billy” Ngo, Kru, Sacramento, CA

Best Chef: Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH)
Vinnie Cimino, Cordelia, Cleveland, OH

Jose Salazar, Mita’s, Cincinnati, OH

Sujan Sarkar, Indienne, Chicago, IL

WINNER: Hajime Sato, Sozai, Clawson, MI

Jenner Tomaska, Esmé, Chicago, IL

Best Chef: Mid-Atlantic (DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, VA)
Tony Conte, Inferno Pizzeria Napoletana, Darnestown, MD

Jesse Ito, Royal Sushi & Izakaya, Philadelphia, PA

Matt Kern, One Coastal, Fenwick Island, DE

WINNER: Harley Peet, Bas Rouge, Easton, MD

Kevin Tien, Moon Rabbit, Washington, D.C.

Best Chef: Midwest (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD, WI)
Ann Ahmed, Khâluna, Minneapolis, MN

Rob Connoley, Bulrush, St. Louis, MO

Dan Jacobs and Dan Van Rite, EsterEv, Milwaukee, WI

WINNER: Christina Nguyen, Hai Hai, Minneapolis, MN

Tim Nicholson, The Boiler Room, Omaha, NE

Best Chef: Mountain (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY)
Brandon Cunningham, Social Haus, Greenough, MT

Ali Sabbah, Mazza Cafe, Salt Lake City, UT

WINNER: Matt Vawter, Rootstalk, Breckenridge, CO

Penelope Wong, Yuan Wonton, Denver, CO

Nick Zocco, Urban Hill, Salt Lake City, UT

Best Chef: New York State
Nasim Alikhani, Sofreh, Brooklyn, NY

Atsushi Kono, Kono, New York, NY

Chris Mauricio, Harana Market, Accord, NY

WINNER: Charlie Mitchell, Clover Hill, Brooklyn, NY

Jeremy Salamon, Agi’s Counter, Brooklyn, NY

Best Chef: Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
Conor Dennehy, Talulla, Cambridge, MA

Maria Meza, Dolores, Providence, RI

WINNER: David Standridge, The Shipwright’s Daughter, Mystic, CT

Jake Stevens, Leeward, Portland, ME

Cara Tobin, Honey Road, Burlington, VT

Best Chef: Northwest and Pacific (AK, HI, OR, WA)
Avery Adams, Matia Kitchen, Orcas Island, WA

Kristi Brown, Communion, Seattle, WA

Josh Dorcak, MÄS, Ashland, OR

WINNER: Gregory Gourdet, kann, Portland, OR

Melissa Miranda, Musang, Seattle, WA

Best Chef: Southeast (GA, KY, NC, SC, TN, WV)
Jamie Davis, The Hackney, Washington, NC

Rod Lassiter and Parnass Savang, Talat Market, Atlanta, GA

James London, Chubby Fish, Charleston, SC

Robbie Robinson, City Limits Barbeque, West Columbia, SC

WINNER: Paul Smith, 1010 Bridge, Charleston, WV

Best Chef: South (AL, AR, FL, LA, MS, PR)
WINNER: Valerie Chang, Maty’s, Miami, FL

Hunter Evans, Elvie’s, Jackson, MS

Gabriel Hernandez, Verde Mesa, San Juan, PR

Carlos Portela, Orujo, San Juan, PR

Arvinder Vilkhu, Saffron, New Orleans, LA

Best Chef: Southwest (AZ, NM, NV, OK)
WINNER: Rene Andrade, Bacanora, Phoenix, AZ
Jeff Chanchaleune, Ma Der Lao Kitchen, Oklahoma City, OK

Steve Kestler, Aroma Latin American Cocina, Henderson, NV

Steve Riley, Mesa Provisions, Albuquerque, NM

Eduardo Rodriguez, Zacatlán, Santa Fe, NM

Best Chef: Texas
Emmanuel Chavez, Tatemó, Houston, TX

Christopher Cullum, Cullum’s Attaboy, San Antonio, TX

Tracy Malechek-Ezekiel, Birdie’s, Austin, TX

Misti Norris, Petra & the Beast, Dallas, TX

WINNER: Ana Liz Pulido, Ana Liz Taqueria, Mission, TX
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 11, 2024, 11:42:40 PM
[img width=500 height=261.998]https://i.imgur.com/QBlf3O3.png[/img]

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
Looks like Roller-Coaster tycoon.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 12, 2024, 11:26:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/g12epWC.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 13, 2024, 07:32:14 PM
incoln has racked up another top national ranking.

According to Forbes Advisor, Lincoln is the No. 1 city in the U.S. for renters.

The survey analyzed the 95 biggest cities in the country on 21 metrics such as median rental prices, rent-to-income ratios, availability of units and amenities to come up with the best and worst cities.

Lincoln was ranked in the top 10 for median monthly rent price, percentage of income going to rent, number of available rentals per 100,000 households, average monthly price per square foot and unemployment rate.

The city's median rent price of $1,225 ranked fifth lowest and considerably lower than the average of $1,995 among the 95 cities.

Jason Metz, the Forbes Advisor renters insurance lead editor, said Lincoln also ranked well in the violent crime metric.


It has also gotten top rankings over the past few years as a good place to buy a home, start a business and raise a family.

“Lincoln’s top ranking as the best city for renters reinforces our community’s status as the quality-of-life capital of the country," Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird said in a statement. "We are proud to offer a welcoming environment where everyone can thrive, thanks to affordable rent prices, a strong job market, and safe neighborhoods,” Gaylor Baird said.

Lincoln just edged out its larger neighbor to the north, as Omaha ranked No. 2 on the list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 14, 2024, 08:08:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-_KG06v74
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 14, 2024, 08:55:15 AM
Not a ranking of course, but I thought this was a weird thing to say.

“There’s nothing I hate more in the world. It’s probably the only thing I hate,” Key said in reference to Georgia’s Football program. “When I say hate, like, truly despise everything about it. I really do.”


Tech* Coach Key.

*I should clarify, he's the head football coach at Georgia Tech, a school in Atlanta that actually is a FBS/ACC program.  You may have heard of them in the past.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 09:35:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Pbz7sjh.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 09:45:24 AM
That's sick.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 09:47:33 AM
I guess after paying a large sum for a ticket and parking, may a $15 beer is reasonable?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 19, 2024, 09:48:25 AM
$6 to 14 is a long way

Better to be a Lions fan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 09:48:42 AM
Draft beer at bars around here goes for $6-$10, you can get cheaper PBR in cans at some places.  The brew pubs charge $7-$9.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2024, 09:52:45 AM
Draft beer at bars around here goes for $6-$10, you can get cheaper PBR in cans at some places.  The brew pubs charge $7-$9.
Difference being brew pubs are charging that for craft beer, whilst NFL stadiums are charging you for BudMillerCoors.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 19, 2024, 09:58:11 AM
large draft IPA (20oz) Fort Dodge, IA last night at the top.... $3.25(https://i.imgur.com/Cflq5Ds.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 19, 2024, 10:01:41 AM
I had a few bud bottles at $1.75 each

couldn't afford to stay sober

pizza and the best wings in the state and beers - 4 guys = Less than $60
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 10:02:23 AM
No idea what a beer costs here. I can generally get a double Tito's for $10 or less in most places.

$8.00 at the local haunt. And more than a double.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 10:06:49 AM
The bar next to us has standard liquor drinks at $7, other places would be $10 or higher.  One place charges over $50, but it's for Hennessey XO.

We have a ton of younger folks living here with apparently a lot of money.  I guess after paying $3K per month for a 2 bedroom apartment, paying $10 for a beverage is considered smallish.

We like to dine out some, but for lunch now it's easily $50 in a lot of spots with no alcohol, and $100 with.  We've pulled back on that sort of thing.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2024, 10:11:55 AM
Yup if my i s c & a aggie wife and I go out for lunch on a weekend and have drinks, it's probably close to $80.  Dinner over $100 many places that are NOT fancy.  We cook at home a lot more often these days and the kids prefer it, they'd rather eat homemade food than restaurant food.  Of course, we're both good cooks, so that helps.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 10:12:21 AM
We went last evening with some friends to a place they like. It was good.

I had two double Tito's (not great pours, mind you). She had 3 Chardonnays. Decent pours.

I had a Rueben with fries (just finished the second half right now) and she had a chicken Caesar salad.

$52.00, plus $15 for tip.

(Yes, I always tip ~30 percent for good service.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 10:13:46 AM
Once you hit this credit score 'you're good'—how to get even better (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/19/once-you-hit-this-credit-score-youre-good-how-to-get-even-better.html)

US average is 717.  They claim going over 750 has diminishing returns, maybe 780 helps for a mortgage a bit.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2024, 10:15:39 AM
One place charges over $50, but it's for Hennessey XO.
Twenty-five years ago I was with my work team in Orange County, CA and we were celebrating finally closing out the final tests on a huge sale, several million dollars, which was going to open another huge sale for more than double, at the same fab/customer account.

We were eating at Morton's of Chicago in Santa Ana, CA.  We'd finished our meals and desserts, and the servers asked if we wanted any after dinner drinks.  The bigwig sales manager decided to buy everyone at the table a glass of Louis XIII Cognac, at $95/glass.  It was very tasty and I was appreciative.  That glass probably costs double or triple that, now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 10:20:57 AM
Midtown Menu | Ecco | Modern European Cuisine in Atlanta, GA (ecco-atlanta.com) (https://www.ecco-atlanta.com/midtown-menus/)

This is where we go if we want to "dine out", not just eat.  There are of course fancier places.  We'd probably get an appetizer, $15, to share, two meals will be $60-$80, and then a bottle of wine, probably $70.  (They don't have much under $45.)  We're well over $100 before tip.

And yes, we can and do fix comparable meals at home, maybe not comparable if I'm cooking, I am more basic.

If we're celebrating, we probably go here, and it's $125 pre fix per, and then wine or whatever else.

Bacchanalia — Star Provisions (https://www.starprovisions.com/bacchanalia#BacchanaliaMenu)

That's the best place we've dined around here.  I should have our loan paid off by August 2025, and have an eye on going there again.

I think the cost of food out has gone up faster than reported inflation rates.  I paid $23 for two Big Mac meals in north Georgia in a small town last month.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 10:24:44 AM
We were eating at Morton's of Chicago in Santa Ana, CA.  We'd finished our meals and desserts, and the servers asked if we wanted any after dinner drinks.  The bigwig sales manager decided to buy everyone at the table a glass of Louis XIII Cognac, at $95/glass.  It was very tasty and I was appreciative.  That glass probably costs double or triple that, now.
One Indian place near us, Tabla, now has Louis Tres.  It's $100 for half ounce, $195 for a full ounce.

I've never had it.  It's over $3K for  the bottle at the store.

We like Tabla for lunch, it's pretty reasonable, a nice order is $16-17.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 03:33:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/rg6MnCT.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 03:38:42 PM
And?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2024, 03:39:08 PM
??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 03:40:49 PM
I like trees.  The rain in Maine falls mainly on trees.

I thought it an interesting "ranking".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 19, 2024, 03:42:52 PM
I like trees.  The rain in Maine falls mainly on trees.

I thought it an interesting "ranking".
The infographic has no title nor a legend, so... we have no idea what you're talking about...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 03:43:53 PM
Right on.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 03:51:50 PM
Oh, I didn't catch that, it's tree coverage.  My bad.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 19, 2024, 04:04:05 PM
And?
??
Percentage of forest cover in each US state. - USA 🇺🇸
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 19, 2024, 04:06:34 PM
I rank my post as being poor indeed.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 19, 2024, 04:38:04 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/rg6MnCT.png)
SEC! SEC! SEC!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 19, 2024, 06:01:34 PM
I like trees.  The rain in Maine falls mainly on trees.

I heard the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains. 

I think. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 19, 2024, 10:27:59 PM
https://youtu.be/FTQbiNvZqaY
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 19, 2024, 10:33:36 PM
I remember trees. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 20, 2024, 08:55:03 AM
https://youtu.be/JnC88xBPkkc
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 20, 2024, 12:32:43 PM
There can't be very many maps in which Maine, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Alabama are all in the same category. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 21, 2024, 08:22:24 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/wTeHgtg.png)

A lot of guesswork of course, reasonable guesses I think, no doubt some badly wrong.  It will be a shock to some the day some 9-4 team wins their major conference and gets a 4 seed and the bye.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 21, 2024, 08:25:21 AM
Michigan?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 21, 2024, 08:37:52 AM
Nope.  ND though, and a lot of SEC teams.  I suspect we'll have a lot of very good 9-3 SEC teams left out, the schedules look pretty daunting for most.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 21, 2024, 08:44:20 AM
I'm not getting all of the Utah love. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 21, 2024, 08:45:25 AM
I'm not getting all of the Utah love.
Who do you favor over them in the Big 12?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 21, 2024, 08:49:43 AM
Probably not anyone, but they are not the 4th best team in the country. And should Texas be upset by Memphis, they have an easy path.

Having to be a conference champion to be in the top 4 is just dumb.

FSU is not that good either.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 21, 2024, 09:37:25 AM
I've been to some of these. San Diego was great. The one in Chicago they mention has nothing on going to Elmwood Park, a near West suburb filled with Italians. And this place: Chicago's Italian Sausage & Deli - The Original Nottoli & Son (https://nottoli.com/)

These Are The Best 'Little Italys' Around The World, According To Travelers (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/these-are-the-best-little-italys-around-the-world-according-to-travelers/ar-BB1hnQqC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ee037bb4d45e4adda2a610fd6fb5c7fe&ei=15)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 21, 2024, 09:41:20 AM
A lot of more casual fans will be "shocked" when some 9-4 conference champ gets a 4 seed when very good 11-1 or 10-2 teams don't.  And yes, the new system IMHO over values winning one's major conference.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 21, 2024, 09:42:12 AM
A lot of more casual fans will be "shocked" when some 9-4 conference champ gets a 4 seed when very good 11-1 or 10-2 teams don't.  And yes, the new system IMHO over values winning one's major conference
Let's face it. We only have two of those now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 21, 2024, 10:24:30 AM
A lot of more casual fans will be "shocked" when some 9-4 conference champ gets a 4 seed when very good 11-1 or 10-2 teams don't.  And yes, the new system IMHO over values winning one's major conference. 
With a ridiculous 12 teams getting in, who cares?  It's not like we're going to leave out some deserving conference runner-ups, anymore.  Errrrrbody gets in now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 21, 2024, 10:35:31 AM
Errrrrbody except the Wolverines, according to that prognostication. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 21, 2024, 10:44:26 AM
With a ridiculous 12 teams getting in, who cares?  It's not like we're going to leave out some deserving conference runner-ups, anymore.  Errrrrbody gets in now.
Exactly. I view this as a feature, not a bug. 

One of the problems with both the BCS and the 4-team CFP is that it massively devalued conference championships. You could win your [major] conference and not have a chance to play for the championship. You could not be eligible to even play in your CCG and get a chance to play for championship, too. 

With 12 teams, if that occasionally means you get an "unworthy" major conference champ, so be it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 21, 2024, 11:06:16 AM
Sort of a ranking.  We saw the pro stadium version of this a few days ago.  Price of a beer at these college stadiums 2023:

(https://i.imgur.com/eNPlM4D.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 24, 2024, 08:09:34 AM
The Top 15 Absolute Best Burgers in Atlanta (atlantaeats.com) (https://www.atlantaeats.com/blog/top-fifteen-burgers-in-atlanta/?no_cache=1718988401&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1usYeJM7-9ZFkmmoCyDDc-O0px_Q3KJ9VfvGua_XtZrxMTj0DNR7YH7wE_aem_BfBuiQbQnI3mabYWoF6coA)

I wouldn't put steak houses on such a list, but OK fine.

STK here has a really good burger for $10 at lunch and HH.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 24, 2024, 01:02:29 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/2tyMFQE.png)

WestJet is the only one on the group I'd rate "Awful".  My daughter says the same.  Air Canada was "OK".  I wouldn't put AA so low based on one experience (long flights though).  I had one flight on Alaska that was quite good, a new 737.  

We do prefer Delta for some specific unique reasons.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 24, 2024, 01:13:25 PM
We do prefer Delta for some specific unique reasons.
The same unique reasons we prefer American, I presume.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 24, 2024, 01:14:55 PM
I rarely fly anymore, is American really that bad?

When I was traveling for work 80% of the time back in the 90s/early 2000s, we flew primarily on AA and I considered it to be the best.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 24, 2024, 01:16:46 PM
We were on AA from here to Japan and then back from Seoul.  I didn't think they were "bad".  I had a minor complaint in Seoul about their checkin process, nothing huge.

They are all about the same, to me, other than WestJet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 24, 2024, 01:31:27 PM
Phew! Atlanta doesn't crack top 50 on 'Dirtiest Cities in America' list | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/top-50-dirtiest-u.s.-cities-america-list?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3AZCgSQW5_9-h7Tk4WPHqoP3zkIzYs-CAp50PpQED_ziGSE2MeI3v2Yx0_aem_yoO_NXGvBJFk3FpC743vSA)

2024's Dirtiest Cities in America - LawnStarter Blog (wpengine.com) (https://lawnstarter.wpengine.com/blog/studies/dirtiest-cities-in-united-states/)


2024's Dirtiest Cities in America
2024's Dirtiest Cities in America



[th]Overall Rank (1=Dirtiest)
[/th]
[th]City
[/th]
[th]State
[/th]
[th]Overall Score
[/th]
[th]Pollution Rank
[/th]
[th]Living Conditions Rank
[/th]
[th]Infrastructure Rank
[/th]
[th]Resident Dissatisfaction Rank
[/th]
1San BernardinoCA54.902562071
2DetroitMI52.891941635
3ReadingPA51.8514352202
4NewarkNJ50.6633111803
5OntarioCA49.0255220613
6PhoenixAZ47.8220150154
7TrentonNJ47.7195141496
8Las VegasNV46.8231110353
9HoustonTX46.73121152750
10BaytownTX46.67112284107

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 24, 2024, 01:36:15 PM
I rarely fly anymore, is American really that bad?

When I was traveling for work 80% of the time back in the 90s/early 2000s, we flew primarily on AA and I considered it to be the best.
We have no issues with them ever. United, to us, is not good. Delta, from here, is always a connection through ATL.

We don't like connections, but depending on where we are going, sometimes we have no choice. RSW is not a hub for any airline. PGD is a semi-hub for Allegiant.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 24, 2024, 02:04:05 PM
2024's Dirtiest Cities in America

San Bernardino (and other inland CA cities) don't surprise me, especially with the pollution aspect. 

Santa Monica at 36, and ranked 7th-worst for pollution, does surprise me... It's so close to the ocean that I would expect air quality to be pretty good as all the pollution they generate gets pushed inland...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 24, 2024, 02:09:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ukcKI8W.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 24, 2024, 02:10:57 PM
odd that the USA isn't on the list

we seem to get plenty of tourists
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 24, 2024, 02:25:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/nYm0MzG.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on June 24, 2024, 02:57:54 PM
We have no issues with them ever. United, to us, is not good. Delta, from here, is always a connection through ATL.

We don't like connections, but depending on where we are going, sometimes we have no choice. RSW is not a hub for any airline. PGD is a semi-hub for Allegiant.
When I used to travel for work frequently, I would always fly Contiental (if possible) as they had a hub in Cleveland, so I could usually get a direct flight wereever I needed to go. I never had any problems with them and they always seemed to accomodate me when issues arose.

Then they merged (swallowed up) by/with United. I didn't care for them as much as Contiental, but they weren't terrible . . . until I lost all of my flyer miles (over 250,000). They did give me a heads up to use them or lose them, but that is about the same time I ended up in the hospital for a couple of months and wasn't able to travel until after they expired. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 24, 2024, 03:04:22 PM
Well, that is a kick in the nuts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 24, 2024, 05:26:11 PM
I probably could have used miles for one of our r/t tickets to Ireland, but figured I'd just bite the bullet and pay out of pocket for both. I'll wait until another trip where we can use them to cover both tickets. 

Back in the day I was regularly traveling >25K / year on American, and then a bunch of regional on Southwest, pretty much all for work. The pandemic, my industry's struggles from mid'22->end'23, and moving to a new role where I'm not directly customer-facing on a daily basis (although I still do interact with them) has largely put a stop to business travel. I do suspect now that our industry has recovered that it'll start again, but it won't be as much for me personally as it used to. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 24, 2024, 08:25:20 PM
All 50 STATES in AMERICA Ranked WORST to BEST (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTQY0HUSy5o)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 24, 2024, 08:38:24 PM
All 50 STATES in AMERICA Ranked WORST to BEST (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTQY0HUSy5o)
46 - Alabama
47 - Arkansas
48
49 - Mississippi
50 - Louisiana
.
All clumped together, literally.
Trump's base. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 24, 2024, 08:49:26 PM
SEC base
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 24, 2024, 10:46:45 PM
States Capital Cities Tier List - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYm1dLKcBgQ)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 25, 2024, 07:03:30 AM
46 - Alabama
47 - Arkansas
48
49 - Mississippi
50 - Louisiana
.
All clumped together, literally.
Trump's base. 
(https://i.imgur.com/BiX4ILN.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 25, 2024, 07:36:23 AM
46 - Alabama
47 - Arkansas
48
49 - Mississippi
50 - Louisiana
.
All clumped together, literally.
Trump's base. 
One could also note those are states with high African American populations, all clumped together, and pose some correlation.

List of U.S. states and territories by African-American population - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 25, 2024, 07:44:15 AM
One could also note those are states with high African American populations, all clumped together, and pose some correlation.

List of U.S. states and territories by African-American population - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population)

Trump's base!


:s_laugh:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 25, 2024, 07:57:26 AM
Biden's base is gang bangers and gender benders. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 25, 2024, 10:49:06 AM
Delta, United compete to be America's luxury airline (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/25/delta-air-lines-americas-luxury-airline-and-what-united-wants-to-do-about-it.html)

Sort of interesting, I don't view either as "luxury" inherently.  Certainly Delta One is "luxury", no doubt, but $$$$$$$ beyond any conceivable value for me.

The "premium economy" is also too pricey, for me, in general.  Comfort Plus used to be a deal, now it's getting pricey too.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 25, 2024, 10:57:07 AM
We get premium and cocktails free on American. As always, we hope to be upgraded to the front. Doesn't happen often.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 25, 2024, 11:13:23 AM
Premium Economy in Delta is only on overseas flights, and has gotten quite pricey.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 25, 2024, 03:49:03 PM
One could also note those are states with high African American populations, all clumped together, and pose some correlation.

List of U.S. states and territories by African-American population - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population)

Tell us more.
If I give you enough rope to hang yourself discussing slavery and bad states correlated with their black populations, is that irony or coincidence?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 25, 2024, 05:26:02 PM
Last year, the New York Times looked at essential restaurants across the country, naming the Webster in Iowa City one of the best nationwide.

Now the newspaper takes a stab at pizzas, looking at the evolution of the dish from Neapolitan crusts that took the country by storm in the 2000s to the pies that are leading the conversation now.

One out of the 22 pizza restaurants that made the list is from Iowa.

Lincoln Winebar’s wood-fired pizzas out of Mount Vernon join the ranks of pizza heavyweights Pizzeria Bianco with its wood-fired pies from James Beard winner Chris Bianco in Phoenix, neighborhood institution Roberta’s in Brooklyn, and Young Joni from James Beard award-winning chef Ann Kim in Minneapolis.


Lincoln Winebar owner Jesse Sauerbrie leans into local ingredients, from asparagus and hot honey sourced from area farms to chives grown on his grandfather’s farm and pepperoni made locally.

The restaurant’s website notes that many of the ingredients are found at organic farms near Mount Vernon. The menu features oyster mushrooms, beets, carrots, and greens, all locally grown.

The restaurant originally opened in 2000 as an ode to wine, but in 2012, James Beard Foundation semifinalist for Best Chef Midwest Matt Steigerwald added a wood-fired oven for making Neapolitan-style pizzas. In 2016, Steigerwald sold the restaurant to longtime employee Sauerbrie.

Look for a roster of classic and seasonal Neapolitan pizzas on the menu. Try a smoked salmon with goat cheese panna cotta base for a riff on the bagel and a nod to Wolfgang Puck, Beets Baby with a pistachio pesto base and baby arugula and goat cheese crown, or the Rocky Balboa topped with Italian meats, smoked mozzarella and Calabrian chilis for a kick.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on June 25, 2024, 08:20:43 PM
Trump's base!


:s_laugh:
Republicans have run those state governments for a small fraction of the last 150 years and that fraction is quite recent. .  Nobody ever talks about that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 25, 2024, 09:27:48 PM
College Football 25 - 25 Toughest Places to Play


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on June 25, 2024, 10:01:52 PM
Honorable mention

Jones AT&T Stadium - Texas Tech
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 25, 2024, 10:06:25 PM
pretty easy to rank them

home winning percentage
home winning percentage vs teams finished the season with winning records
home winning percentage vs teams that finished top 25
home winning percentage vs teams that finished top 10
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 26, 2024, 07:53:07 AM
Last year, the New York Times looked at essential restaurants across the country, naming the Webster in Iowa City one of the best nationwide.

That place gets 3.5* out of 5 on Tripadvisor. But yeah, the New York Times.

Understandable.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 26, 2024, 08:16:10 AM
tripadvisor and the Times do rankings to get clicks

I do not trust either of them

I don't get to Iowa City often, but I'd try the Webster and rate it myself.
Last time there with customers.... they suggested Jethro's BBQ
I wasn't impressed a tall
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 26, 2024, 08:32:15 AM
Trip Advisor has gotten to be useless (when new, it was at times useful if one was careful).  Everything gets about 4 stars on TA.  I've been in small towns where the local Pizza Hut was their highest ranked restaurant.

I don't know any rankings of anything I use for much any more unless I'm very unfamiliar with the area and want to get a rough general notion of what might be worth seeing or trying.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 26, 2024, 08:33:57 AM
if you think the star rating is useless

try reading the comments below
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 26, 2024, 08:43:02 AM
Trip Advisor has gotten to be useless (when new, it was at times useful if one was careful).  Everything gets about 4 stars on TA.  I've been in small towns where the local Pizza Hut was their highest ranked restaurant.

I don't know any rankings of anything I use for much any more unless I'm very unfamiliar with the area and want to get a rough general notion of what might be worth seeing or trying. 
I find it useful to read the comments.

I've also dug in and checked on reviewers who give 1 or 2*, for kicks.

Most of them 1 or 2* every place they review.

Unhappy people.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 26, 2024, 08:47:28 AM
I can soemtimes tell when a commenter is "real" and has useful suggestions or observations.  That's about it for me.

I know folks can have a poor experience anywhere when it's not the common event, and they are more motivated to review than someone who has a normal experience, which could be pretty good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 08:44:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/cu92VZx.png)

I am surprised CFA has such a large coverage (if they do).  Most popular could mean anything.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 08:54:18 AM
not many CFAs in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota

popular must not mean, most often
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 08:55:34 AM
Yeah, no way CFL leads in Illinois.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 08:59:34 AM
"Most popular" could be the result of some poll, or actual sales volume.  I think it has to be the former here.  And that is dubious.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 09:02:33 AM
I'm not a CFL fan at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 09:07:57 AM
The main reason I like CFA is their service.  I'm fine with the sammich and waffle fries, they get a bit pricey.  The service to me is excellent.  That said, I have not dined at one in two plus years.  My wife likes it, if we're driving somewhere it's high on our list for quick food options.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 09:10:46 AM
a lot of folks in my area have never tried a CFA

6 cities in Iowa have a CFA
3 cities in Nebraska
2 cities in South Dakota
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 09:11:19 AM
The main reason I like CFA is their service.  I'm fine with the sammich and waffle fries, they get a bit pricey.  The service to me is excellent.  That said, I have not dined at one in two plus years.  My wife likes it, if we're driving somewhere it's high on our list for quick food options.
That's the problem. No like.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 09:13:15 AM
great service.

Is it really that much better than most fast food places?

great service vs waiting in line 5 times longer than another place for a chicken sammich?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 09:17:27 AM
IMHO, CFA has much much better service than any other fast chain operation I've ever tried.  We sit eating there and I look around and marvel at it and wonder why others can't emulate it.  My guess is they pay well, but I don't know that, and their managers are well vetted.

It's a pleasure to watch, for me.  

We have one 3 blocks away from us, but we prefer dining at local places over chains.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 09:23:09 AM
I don't know where the nearest one is. The only chains in PG are by the interstate, CFL is not one of them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 09:26:36 AM
Located in: [color=var(--JKqx2)]Shoppes of Port Charlotte (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=cbee88a0659955a3&sca_upv=1&cs=0&output=search&q=Shoppes+of+Port+Charlotte&ludocid=481559821425375195&lsig=AB86z5WDt1A4jiTS-cAxUROCOMUW&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHzoiJ8fuGAxWiC3kGHZcDAkgQ8G0oAHoECCYQAQ)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--COEmY)]Address (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=cbee88a0659955a3&sca_upv=1&cs=0&sxsrf=ADLYWIIslGUpcd49kvQ8BlWSZHHrPaoyUg:1719494739435&q=chick-fil-a+port+charlotte+address&ludocid=15250146915729419306&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHzoiJ8fuGAxWiC3kGHZcDAkgQ6BN6BAgPEAI)[/iurl]: [/b][color=var(--COEmY)]1814 Tamiami Trl, Port Charlotte, FL 33948[/color][/font][/size][/color]

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 09:38:16 AM
I stopped at a Runza a week or so ago in Lincoln on my way to the golf course

went inside to order and eat

staff was friendly, took my order immediately, delivered my order in a few minutes, food was fresh and hot.  place was clean and the right temp. A/C was working.

not sure what else I'd want in that visit to make it much better
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 09:43:25 AM
I am unfamiliar with Runza.  My own experience is that CFA has far better service than any of the other national chains.  It's not close, in my view.

There was a McD's near us in Cincy that was pretty good, we went there for breakfast on occasion.  That isn't the usual experience at a McDs.  And CFA is better than that McDs.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 09:44:53 AM
I stopped at a Runza a week or so ago in Lincoln on my way to the golf course

went inside to order and eat

staff was friendly, took my order immediately, delivered my order in a few minutes, food was fresh and hot.  place was clean and the right temp. A/C was working.

not sure what else I'd want in that visit to make it much better

Would you say this service and experience was better than what you get at your average national fast food chain?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 09:47:45 AM
don't know...

it's the first time I've been at a fast food place in years

do most fast food places screw up something or have issues?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 09:48:55 AM
Located in: [color=var(--JKqx2)]Shoppes of Port Charlotte (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=cbee88a0659955a3&sca_upv=1&cs=0&output=search&q=Shoppes+of+Port+Charlotte&ludocid=481559821425375195&lsig=AB86z5WDt1A4jiTS-cAxUROCOMUW&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHzoiJ8fuGAxWiC3kGHZcDAkgQ8G0oAHoECCYQAQ)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--COEmY)]Address (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=cbee88a0659955a3&sca_upv=1&cs=0&sxsrf=ADLYWIIslGUpcd49kvQ8BlWSZHHrPaoyUg:1719494739435&q=chick-fil-a+port+charlotte+address&ludocid=15250146915729419306&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHzoiJ8fuGAxWiC3kGHZcDAkgQ6BN6BAgPEAI)[/iurl]: [/b][color=var(--COEmY)]1814 Tamiami Trl, Port Charlotte, FL 33948[/color][/font][/size][/color]


Not driving 20 miles for waffle fries I don't like. And their chicken is just meh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 09:51:52 AM
I wouldn't drive 20 miles for CFA either, I don't even walk three blocks for it.

My sole point is that in my view their service is far ahead of any other national chain.  

Now I'm hungry.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 09:52:20 AM
don't know...

it's the first time I've been at a fast food place in years

do most fast food places screw up something or have issues?
Yes.


My experiences mirror CD's-- CFA is superior in service, efficiency, cleanliness, friendliness, quality, consistency, and overall experience, compared to all of the other national fast food chains.  This isn't comparing them against local or regional places, just the big national brands.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 10:02:42 AM
There is a Culver's next to the motel we stay at in North Port.  We've had lunch there twice.  I hadn't thought of it as a fast food place, but I can see that it is.  It was OK with me.  The choices for a quick lunch in North Port are .... limited.

If there was a CFA there, we'd probably have lunch there.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 10:07:54 AM
I know most places have high school kids working
I remember from over 20 years ago many times orders weren't accurate.
Food wasn't fresh or warm.
Wait times were long.
part of the reason I quit going to those places

the real reason was the quality and healthiness of the food compared to price.
mostly the food sucked

one large factor for me would be wait time to place an order

CFA seems to usually have the longest line at the drive thru, I'd expect the same inside at the counter
I'm not standing in line very long for a chicken sammich
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 10:09:34 AM
There is a Culver's next to the motel we stay at in North Port.  We've had lunch there twice.  I hadn't thought of it as a fast food place, but I can see that it is.  It was OK with me.  The choices for a quick lunch in North Port are .... limited.

If there was a CFA there, we'd probably have lunch there. 


did you have poor service at Culver's?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on June 27, 2024, 10:13:26 AM
Culver's is always good service, and mostly older people work at the one I go to occasionally.

Everything is made to order so it's not as fast as some. They give you a number and bring the food to your table when it's done.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 10:13:37 AM
did you have poor service at Culver's?
No.  It was fine.

Service usually is "fine" or "OK" at fast food places, but it is far short of what I experience and witness at a CFA.  That's my sole point.

I'm OK with the waffle fries and the chicken.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 10:17:23 AM
To me, there is a difference between good service and superb service.  I generally encounter the latter only when spending too many dollars, and that isn't a guarantee.  Some expensive places feature "intrusive service", there has to be a balance, and it's not something easily achieved.

That 3 star place where we had lunch in Marseille had excellent service, I usually look around and note how they are doing, old habit.  I suspect any 3 star place would have it.  I just didn't like the food. 

The one star place we've been to has excellent service, not intrusive, there when you need it, gone when you don't.

The bar next to us has pretty good service, usually, for a bar.  It's not exceptional, but I don't expect it at that price.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 10:36:46 AM
CFA seems to usually have the longest line at the drive thru, I'd expect the same inside at the counter
I'm not standing in line very long for a chicken sammich
I can tell you don't frequent CFA.  They are extremely efficient.  You can get through a drive-thru line 4x as long at CFA, compared to say McDonald's, in the same amount of time. 

If you don't like the food or don't value the food, that's fine.  The lines at CFA are not a problem.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 11:34:44 AM
I don't value the food, it's OK.
I'm just guessing it's more expensive than the fast food place next door.
In my case, it's A&W on one side and Hardee's on the other.

I've heard CFA's line moves quickly, but if there's NO line at Hardees or 2 cars instead of 20.....

really doesn't matter to me, cause there's little chance that I give any of the 3 a chance.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 11:58:20 AM
The service quality at CFA is about more than wait time.  Wait time isn't particularly amazing.  Someone still has to prepare your order.

If I'm on the road, I'll stop at a CFA before any other major chain if I'm in a hurry.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 01:17:59 PM
I don't value the food, it's OK.
I'm just guessing it's more expensive than the fast food place next door.
In my case, it's A&W on one side and Hardee's on the other.

I've heard CFA's line moves quickly, but if there's NO line at Hardees or 2 cars instead of 20.....

really doesn't matter to me, cause there's little chance that I give any of the 3 a chance.
I mean, you admittedly don't like and don't eat fast food.  So I'm not sure why you're bothering to involve yourself in a discussion about the relative merits of various fast food restaurants.  You shouldn't have any opinion at all, since you don't have any experience at all.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 01:21:40 PM
I think he values speed, and no lines, over other things, which is fine.

I was careful to note "in my experience", and that I also rarely eat "fast food" in chains.

We went to the Korean fried chicken place Monday, which is kind of "fast food", it's still excellent.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 01:21:52 PM
my only question was about service quality

my few occasions in the past 20 years, my service quality was fine.

just wondered what would make it so much better as to be a difference maker

I mean, maybe they have someone in the men's room handing out warm towels or something
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 27, 2024, 01:27:37 PM
One thing at CFA I like is they are friendly, and go out of their way to meet any requests.  Then you often have a lady going around to each table asking if you need a refill, of anything else.  You don't see workers standing around gabbing, they are all getting after it.  The place is clean, and you see someone emptying garbage bins often, and sweeping the floor, restocking condiments, picking up trash, the exterior is well maintained also.  For me, it's a marvel to watch the operation.

The last time we were in a McDs, there was no one at the ordering counter for a minute, then a person came up and it seemed as if we were bothering her, really.  She took our order, and it came out as ordered, OK fine, a smile would be nice.  The bathroom needed work, and the garbage bins were over flowing, nobody seemed to care, they were standing in the back gabbing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 02:26:35 PM
Yup.  CFA really is a step above.  A couple of my daughter's friends work there, and they're the "good" ones-- excellent grades, lots of extracurriculars, strong work ethic.

My daughter's lazier friends all work at Old Navy or the movie theater.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 03:01:33 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/YhLAmle.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 03:29:17 PM
Top Experiences - World
Travelers of all types (museum buffs, food lovers, thrill-seekers) agree: these are the best experiences out there. Full stop.

The Travelers’ Choice Awards Best of the Best title celebrates the highest level of excellence in travel. It’s awarded to those who receive a high volume of above-and-beyond reviews and opinions from the Tripadvisor community over a 12-month period. Out of our 8 million listings, fewer than 1% achieve this milestone.


https://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-ThingsToDo (https://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-ThingsToDo)

I might do this one......... listed at #19

(https://i.imgur.com/2WaxVjn.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 04:43:18 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fO1XXE5.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 04:43:30 PM
colorado???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 27, 2024, 05:16:42 PM
Final Rankings in the Learfield Director's Cup All Sports Trophy:

Top 25

1 Texas (Big 12) - 1377.00
2 Stanford (Pac-12) - 1312.75
3 Tennessee (SEC) - 1217.00
4 Florida (SEC) - 1189.00
5 Virginia (ACC) - 1066.25
6 Texas A&M (SEC) - 1059.25
7 North Carolina (ACC) - 1035.75
8 Michigan (Big Ten) - 1030.00
9 Alabama (SEC) - 1028.88
10 UCLA (Pac-12) - 1017.50
11 Notre Dame (ACC) - 1008.50
12 Florida State (ACC) - 998.88
13 LSU (SEC) - 998.50
14 USC (Pac-12) - 994.00
15 Ohio State (Big Ten) - 981.00
16 Georgia (SEC) - 951.38
17 Duke (ACC) - 928.50
18 Arkansas (SEC) - 921.75
19 Oklahoma State (Big 12) - 896.00
20 California (Pac-12) - 886.00
21 North Carolina State (ACC) - 853.50
22 Nebraska (Big Ten) - 841.00
23 Penn State (Big Ten) - 827.75
24 Oklahoma (Big 12) - 805.75
25 Wisconsin (Big Ten) - 765.50


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 05:31:11 PM
The University of Nebraska Athletic Department capped a strong athletic year by placing 22nd in the final 2023-24 Division I Learfield Directors’ Cup standings released Wednesday morning.

Nebraska finished the year with 841.00 total points, marking its best finish since a 17th-place showing in 2010 and second straight top-30 finish. It is only the third time in the last 20 years that the Huskers’ eclipsed the 800-point mark in the all-sports competition.

3rd in the Big Ten
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 27, 2024, 10:48:36 PM
Damn, Florida's slipping.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 27, 2024, 10:51:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fO1XXE5.jpeg)
Florida doesn't belong anywhere near 25.  We haven't had a good defense since like 2019 and that was a 1-year blip.  
We used to be a top-15 defense EVERY year and then fell off a cliff.  It's stupid.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 27, 2024, 10:53:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fO1XXE5.jpeg)
This defense list especially makes me think it's just for clicks and eyeballs.  It will be updated week-to-week, so the teams like USC, CU, and UNC will drop off quickly.

But to have CU on here preseason, it's solely just a car on the hype train. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 27, 2024, 11:24:33 PM
yup

maybe they just confused Nebraska and Colorado?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 28, 2024, 12:04:20 AM
Just catering to 12 year olds.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2024, 06:42:06 AM
From Montana to Maine: The 42 Hard to Impossible Hikes in America, Ranked (worldtravelling.com) (https://worldtravelling.com/the-21-hard-to-impossible-hikes-in-america-ranked/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=WPD FC_Hard Hiking_P6_ZNR - vv10WT WT FB WW)

Kind of useful, not for me perhaps, but interesting, just to see which are listed, if not ranked exactly.

1. Sierra High Route, Sierra Nevada, California

Escape the beaten path of the John Muir Trail and embrace the rugged allure of the Sierra High Route. This 210-mile journey is not just a hike; it’s an alpine odyssey through some of the most breathtaking landscapes in the country. Picture yourself navigating over 33 daunting granite passes, each offering a new challenge and a stunning vista. The Sierra High Route tests physical endurance and navigation skills, often without a trail to guide you. The trail is rated as Class 5.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 28, 2024, 07:26:47 AM
I hike down to the local pub and back.  mostly on Wednesdays for wings
It's up hill on the way back. Cornsiderably harder
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 28, 2024, 07:32:21 AM
The Angel's Landing hike is one I would like to have attempted, a few years back. 

(https://i.imgur.com/xDBx4U1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 28, 2024, 08:25:55 AM
not me, but I'm not a hiker

also, never been a fan of falling off cliffs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 28, 2024, 09:51:48 AM
These treacherous mountain hikes really out us flat-landers. I once got to a point where I was on a trail about two feet wide, where one side was a cliff straight up and the other side was a cliff straight down. I'm taking baby steps, contemplating whether or not I should get down on all fours for this part. Then all of a sudden an 8 year old girl rounds the bend and is barreling down on me. I'm thinking "crap, how in the Hell am I going to pass someone on this..." then she just blows by me like I'm not even there, and continues on down the trail at a brisk pace. Stunned, I thought "well, I guess I just need to man up and do this." 

In hindsight I believe that she may have been the ghost of some poor young girl that had already fallen. :017:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on June 28, 2024, 09:43:12 PM
A few years ago, I was at a cabin with a friend outside of Santa Fe.  We go for a hike, nothing crazy, relatively flat compared to the steep mountainsides, but it was at 8000'.

I was huffing and puffing something fierce.  I'm totally out of shape, I get it, but my heart wasn't beating fast or anything.  It was purely a breathing thing, which was weird to me.  I don't think I'd ever been that out of breath without my heart pumping fast from running or whatever.

I just had to go slow, and I was fine.  Elevation is a sonofabitch.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 29, 2024, 01:02:10 PM
Ranking The Best (And Worst) Hot Sauces To Spice Up Your Plate - Explored Sports (https://www.exploredsports.com/legends/ranking-the-best-and-worst-hot-sauces-to-spice-up-your-plate/?utm_source=fz&utm_campaign=120212441377400012-120212441378200012-fz&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=120212441381770012-fz&utm_term&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMAABHZSbKorDeJPRdMzmLJlfKOOu44mW8Lc2aeZF0YeQfpK0pWjSlNx-kpzLrg_aem_7uKxD7WAihI2u6tH-2SV4Q)

They have Frank's as one of the worst, I like Frank's, this should be a personal decision.  Goofy rankings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on June 29, 2024, 01:37:28 PM


I'm rolling with Melinda for the hot sauce. 

(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/393c5986-efcb-4643-a787-c1aa48f9dd86.af385c488c3643324df69c90bd7023db.jpeg?odnHeight=768&odnWidth=768&odnBg=FFFFFF)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 29, 2024, 01:47:29 PM
I haven't seen that around here.  I'd bet a lot of more local hot sauces are solid.  I used Frank's on Cincinnati Chili all the time, usually a lot of it.

I like Tabasco Green on egg dishes (which for some reason, we eat often, for dinner and breakfast, I don't know why).


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on June 29, 2024, 02:12:56 PM
We keep Cholula and Srirachi around at all times. Also several local ones.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 29, 2024, 03:15:52 PM
I don't like Tapatio - has a pronounced dirt flavor. We have a ton of Cholula and Frank's because it is sold at Costco. I like Tabasco and usually keep the red and green around. Also always have Texas Pete's - think it is great on fried seafood, and it was pretty close to a hot sauce I had on street meat in Oxford when I studied abroad one summer, so I always put it on gyros too. I usually keep green El Yucateco on hand too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on June 29, 2024, 04:57:05 PM
Sriracha is good b/c it's not necessarily a "hot sauce"; it's a particularly Asian flavor of hot sauce. 

I don't like Tabasco. It's SO insanely dominated by vinegar that I can't really enjoy it. We have a bottle in case a recipe calls for it, but I wouldn't use it on anything else voluntarily. 

Cholula and Tapatio are both decent hot sauces. Nothing special, but decent. We have a bottle of Tapatio in the house that rarely gets looked at. 

I tend towards the local, we have this one: https://www.chonehotsauce.com/ -- some really good stuff. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on June 29, 2024, 06:35:38 PM
I do not like Hoy Fung sriracha, but I did try another brand that I liked a lot. But now I can't find that anymore, nor even remember what it was.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on June 29, 2024, 08:26:49 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9zhwC6V.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on June 30, 2024, 03:30:22 PM
This is another example of some "expert" (and maybe he is that) telling us what we should think about a thing.

Opinion: Biden and Trump’s presidential debate performance rated by champion debate coach | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/opinions/performance-analysis-cnn-debate-graham/index.html)

In my view, how Trump did is irrelevant.  To me, he looked like Trump has always looked on TV.  And it didn't change anything.

On the other hand, Joe obviously had a chance to build confidence that he is up to the job.  It takes a lot of spin to claim he did that (and this "expert" gave him an F).  That was the pivotal thing, not whether Trump was Trump.

Debates are often about imagery, not substance.  Someone might read a transcript and think "X" did pretty well, and then see the imagery and delivery and think ""X" bombed totally.

Anyway, we beat Medicare.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 01, 2024, 02:57:56 AM
What % bump does Trump get from the orange makeup?  How much of his perceived vigor is from it?  A pale-faced 78 year old throwing those zingers just seems like a grumpy old man, no?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 01, 2024, 07:39:22 AM
We'll have some polls out pretty soon, probably today.  He didn't look very orange, to me, in the debate, but he has at times.  I think it's the artificial tanning stuff that does that.  His perceived vigor is that he's bombastic and loud and pretty clearly not what I'd call frail in appearance.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 01, 2024, 11:47:40 AM


(https://i.imgur.com/htjXNM2.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 01, 2024, 12:15:50 PM
I tend not to follow recruiting very much, I figure the coaches will deal with it.  Something will pop out on FB when they get a commit, OK fine, maybe he'll sign, maybe he'll be good, maybe whatever.  As some here opined, recruiting today is "almost meaningless".

I wouldn't go that far of course.  It means something pretty substantial I think, it obviously is not quite a singular as once it was.

I  gather De Bore is holding up this end pretty well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 01, 2024, 12:21:19 PM
Rutgers and Wisconsin are high because of volume. Both classes are nearly full.

247 rankings are based on a combination of volume and quality. As of today, UW has only four 4* players on 247 (five on Rivals). UW has 21 commitments.

OSU also has 21 commits. Three 5* and 14 4*.

Big difference.

Here are the ratings (247) by average player rankings.

2025 Recruit Football Team Rankings (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/season/2025-football-20251/compositeteamrankings/?OrderBy=Avg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 01, 2024, 12:27:38 PM
Rutgers with (6) 4-stars
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 01, 2024, 01:13:00 PM
Rutgers with (6) 4-stars
Schiano is doing a good job of keeping those 4* NJ kids home.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 01, 2024, 04:57:45 PM
The world's most liveable cities for 2024 listed in new report (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/world-most-liveable-cities-2024-report?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1vFffzJyu9gjYwNLjIISem4NGedm8DRaJdoAD4KS516NKUiAIs-oTgjMw_aem_M-hJ1fRB_aV1hSN1AdejMg)

I guess affordability wasn't much of a factor in this.

Rankings of the best cities to live in the U.S.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 01, 2024, 05:06:01 PM
Yes, yes. Everyone should move to Honolulu and Atlanta!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 01, 2024, 05:11:20 PM
I really really don't understand the US cities ranking, but whatever.  

If I were talking about larger cities, I'd include San Diego at least, and probably Salt Lake City, and Columbus, Ohio.  I'd put in Boston and Atlanta, OK there.  What about Tampa?  I haven't spent much time there.

Nashville?

Ft. Worth?

Albequerque?  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 01, 2024, 10:07:51 PM
I really really don't understand the US cities ranking, but whatever. 

If I were talking about larger cities, I'd include San Diego at least, and probably Salt Lake City, and Columbus, Ohio.  I'd put in Boston and Atlanta, OK there.  What about Tampa?  I haven't spent much time there.

Nashville?

Ft. Worth?

Albequerque? 


From the one week I’ve been there, the Tampa area seemed better than Tampa itself. Not bad, but I’d take St Pete’s over it.

Nashville it’s a little too congested for its own good. And it’s best known area is kind of bad. Elsewhere are some pretty good spots.

Isn’t Fort Worth just more Dallas?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 01, 2024, 10:43:51 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/zwMLhRv.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on July 01, 2024, 11:14:09 PM
I'm no water carrier for TX but Fort Worth should never be described as more Dallas, or anything like Dallas.

Personally, I like Ft Worth and the people there will tell you straight up, that they ain't Dallas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 12:01:47 AM
Fort Worth ain't no Dallas that's for sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 02, 2024, 04:04:34 AM
Yeah, Tampa isn't great, but Tampa adjacent is.


Would anyone honestly rather live in Chicago than Miami?  Huh??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 02, 2024, 07:42:30 AM
We traveled around the US looking for places to retire and considered a few fairly seriously, including Las Vegas.  My wife wanted hot weather, so that narrowed things down a lot.  I wanted low taxes.  But a place to retire is of course different from a place to raise a family, or be a young couple, etc.

Minneaspolic seemed decent the two times I was there.

Houston seemed like one enormous strip mall outside downtown.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 08:32:21 AM
Fort Worth ain't no Dallas that's for sure.
May I request an education in the differences? (I fully cop that my only Fort Worth experience was leaving DFW and driving right to a barbecue restaurant, eating there and then driving out of town)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 08:35:59 AM
Minneaspolic seemed decent the two times I was there.

Houston seemed like one enormous strip mall outside downtown.


I have found the Twin Cities to be generally lovely. Weather would be an irritant.

Only been to Houston once, and that was mainly as a launching point to go somewhere else in Texas. I’ve heard it has an unbelievable set of restaurants in the lake, but people say it lacks any semblance of centrality. (I ate entirely upscale BBQ and tacos, and that frankly ruled)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 02, 2024, 08:37:22 AM
I used to fly into Houston about every 5 weeks, we had a joint project with Shell Chemical.  In February, it was excellent, in August, it was not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 08:38:19 AM
Yeah, Tampa isn't great, but Tampa adjacent is.


Would anyone honestly rather live in Chicago than Miami?  Huh??
Ummm... F no.

Stupid list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 02, 2024, 08:44:51 AM
More people live in Chicago than Miami, so apparently, ...  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 08:51:07 AM
Ummm... F no.

Stupid list.
I asked this question in sort of a sense of learning, but what is the really strong hook for Miami (not comparing to Chicago)? I feel like when it gets talked up, the main points are:

-Warm
-Great night life
-Beach access
-Great food from one immigrant group (Cubans)
-wonderful and vibrant Spanish-speaking population if that is a selling point

With listed downsides as insane traffic, challenging weather, not as much ability to get out to diverse places (ecologically and geologically)

is there something I missing in terms of other food or culture? Some other hook I don’t know about?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 08:53:37 AM
More money lives in Miami than Chicago.

Miami

(https://i.imgur.com/nfOTDt4.png)

Chicago

(https://i.imgur.com/JYcbV6K.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 08:57:47 AM
I asked this question in sort of a sense of learning, but what is the really strong hook for Miami (not comparing to Chicago)? I feel like when it gets talked up, the main points are:

-Warm
-Great night life
-Beach access
-Great food from one immigrant group (Cubans)
-wonderful and vibrant Spanish-speaking population if that is a selling point

With listed downsides as insane traffic, challenging weather, not as much ability to get out to diverse places (ecologically and geologically)

is there something I missing in terms of other food or culture? Some other hook I don’t know about?
The food in Miami is more than Cuban. It's a great all-around food city - as is Chicago. Chicago used to have great night life, but we all know what happened there.

Chicago traffic is worse than Miami's and the winters are long and bad. You can use the beach in Chicago (if you can get to it), but the water never gets much above 72, so you're not swimming unless you're 8 years old.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 02, 2024, 09:00:37 AM
or a wuss
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 09:08:50 AM
The food in Miami is more than Cuban. It's a great all-around food city - as is Chicago. Chicago used to have great night life, but we all know what happened there.

Chicago traffic is worse than Miami's and the winters are long and bad. You can use the beach in Chicago (if you can get to it), but the water never gets much above 72, so you're not swimming unless you're 8 years old.
So I may have phrased the questions poorly. I'm saying separate from Chicago. Let's say I live in Summerville SC, so I have reasonable beach access and it is already hot, and I'm in my mid-30s, so hardcore night life is not for me. 

I'm positive Miami has a hook for me in that situation, and I just don't yet know what it is. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 09:11:25 AM
Maybe not Miami proper, but other areas nearby would check the boxes, if I'm interpreting you correctly.

Perhaps @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) can weigh in.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 09:14:39 AM
I like visiting Miami but wouldn't ever live there.  There's this sort of thin veneer of wealth and extravagance, but it feels a little hollow underneath.  For me it has the same feeling that LA and Las Vegas have-- it has no soul.

Just my opinion of course.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 09:34:47 AM
I'm no water carrier for TX but Fort Worth should never be described as more Dallas, or anything like Dallas.

Personally, I like Ft Worth and the people there will tell you straight up, that they ain't Dallas.
yup, my brother lives between the two.
He refuses to go to Dallas but doesn't mind FW.
Of course that's mostly because of the traffic and parking and prices.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 09:39:36 AM
I wouldn't live in Miami or Chicago proper

In the surrounding areas and forced to chose?
That's tough, probably go with Miami.  More weeks for golf
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 09:42:29 AM
Dallas is all about the $40,000aires, leasing BMW M3s to pretend they're wealthy.  Telecom and High Tech and some gas and oil money dominate its culture.

Fort Worth is a lot more grounded.  Its culture is based more on the businesses of livestock and agriculture.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 09:44:24 AM
Dallas is all about the $40,000aires, leasing BMW M3s to pretend they're wealthy.  Telecom and High Tech and some gas and oil money dominate its culture.

Fort Worth is a lot more grounded.  Its culture is based more on the businesses of livestock and agriculture.
Gotcha. Thanks for the insight. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 09:45:19 AM
of course, FW has Billy Bob's and the stockyards
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 02, 2024, 09:46:34 AM
Maybe not Miami proper, but other areas nearby would check the boxes, if I'm interpreting you correctly.

Perhaps @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) can weigh in.
Oh yes Mdot - Mr Curator and escort who manages the errands of private clients along with their champagne wishes and caviar dreams. Yes dial him up immediately REFINED is his middle name 
:D
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 09:46:37 AM
In reality it's a lot more blended than it used to be-- there's some Dallas in Fort Worth and some Fort Worth in Dallas.

But the backbone of each city remains independent and unique.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 02, 2024, 09:49:52 AM
Dallas is all about the $40,000aires, leasing BMW M3s to pretend they're wealthy.  Telecom and High Tech and some gas and oil money dominate its culture.

Fort Worth is a lot more grounded.  Its culture is based more on the businesses of livestock and agriculture.
Now that appeals to me I can get some Live Oak at least. Could I still drive around a 2011 Corolla or 2002 Passat?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 10:01:54 AM
Now that appeals to me I can get some Live Oak at least. Could I still drive around a 2011 Corolla or 2002 Passat?
In Austin, sure.

In Dallas, I'm pretty sure you'd get forced off the road by Highland Park cops using the PIT maneuver and cited for uglifying their fair city.

And in Fort Worth, you wouldn't be able to see over all of the F350s.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 10:08:55 AM
Oh yes Mdot - Mr Curator and escort who manages the errands of private clients along with their champagne wishes and caviar dreams. Yes dial him up immediately REFINED is his middle name
:D
He lives over that way, but not actually in Miami. @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) lives in an area that I would likely have chosen if we picked the Atlantic over the Gulf.

Consulting these guys makes sense. You want to know about SW FL? I'm your guy.

And yes to St. Pete over Tampa. Clearwater over Tampa too. Can always drive into Tampa from those places. Tampa has an awesome food scene.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 10:29:16 AM
He lives over that way, but not actually in Miami. @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) lives in an area that I would likely have chosen if we picked the Atlantic over the Gulf.

Consulting these guys makes sense. You want to know about SW FL? I'm your guy.

And yes to St. Pete over Tampa. Clearwater over Tampa too. Can always drive into Tampa from those places. Tampa has an awesome food scene.
The one week that I was there, oh man did we eat well. Watch the great badger game too over some stuffed burgers and tots.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 10:40:49 AM
St. Pete & Clearwater have some great food options
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 10:43:14 AM
I really like St. Pete.  Had some incredible seafood there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 10:44:44 AM
The one week that I was there, oh man did we eat well. Watch the great badger game too over some stuffed burgers and tots.
Where?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 10:45:19 AM
I really like St. Pete.  Had some incredible seafood there.
There is incredible seafood along the entire Gulf Coast.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 10:47:13 AM
I really like St. Pete.  Had some incredible seafood there.
yup, was planning a beach vacation for the daughters.
Talked to a local who told me St. Pete was better than Clearwater.
Had a great time


(https://i.imgur.com/7jnHo6b.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 10:48:16 AM
There is incredible seafood along the entire Gulf Coast.
Well, yeah.  As you might recall, I'm born, raised, and have lived my entire life in a Gulf Coast state... ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 10:58:12 AM
Yep. But I live ON the coast. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 02, 2024, 11:04:33 AM
Yep. But I live ON the coast. :)
My condolences. Fun place to visit, would never live there.  :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 11:08:45 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/d3HULAF.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 11:09:43 AM
My condolences. Fun place to visit, would never live there.  :)

We absolutely love it here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 02, 2024, 11:10:19 AM
except for the hurricanes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 11:21:16 AM
We get plenty of advanced notice at least. 

They do suck, but so does -5 temps, no sun for months, snowstorms and all that shit.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 02, 2024, 11:42:09 AM
Where?
It was Coppertail brewing. It looks like the menu has changed a good bit since then. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 02, 2024, 12:39:15 PM
It was Coppertail brewing. It looks like the menu has changed a good bit since then.
When were you there?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 03, 2024, 11:48:19 AM
https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-cornhuskers-big-ten-conference-total-operating-expenses-2023/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3-g8Mja5dKbLq5PN8apg2s_vMX3texAIvmETCstpEsu39tEDBRcP1psnU_aem_flRo_-_kGCExhEk9Arso7A (https://cornhuskerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nebraska-cornhuskers-big-ten-conference-total-operating-expenses-2023/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3-g8Mja5dKbLq5PN8apg2s_vMX3texAIvmETCstpEsu39tEDBRcP1psnU_aem_flRo_-_kGCExhEk9Arso7A)

A recent analysis from Sportico has examined the finances of college athletic departments across the country. The outlet has released the Total Operating Revenues and Total Operating Expenses for all major college programs in 2023.

It should come as no surprise that the Nebraska Cornhuskers are ranked in the top ten for revenue. In fact the Huskers are one of only nine programs to crack the $200,000,000 mark for total operating revenue.

Nebraska’s revenue for 2023 came out to $204,831,356, while its expenses came out to a total of $190,870,384. Where does Nebraska rank among the Big Ten’s membership?

It should be noted that this list only contains 2023 Big Ten members; therefore, newcomers Oregon, UCLA, USC, and Washington are not included. Northwestern, a private school that does not disclose its financial data, is also not included.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 12:29:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/GdFn4Nr.png)

I would have put Shanghai and Hong Kong in the list, and not Dubai, I seriously doubt that one.  Singapore maybe so.  New Dehli probably also, and Mumbai, and Coa, and some other similar cities in India.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 01:41:32 PM
More ludicrous "rankings" ....  maybe 1-8 are in the running.  

(https://i.imgur.com/5k7pBVi.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 03, 2024, 01:45:11 PM
Neither LA, Chicago, or NY are "BBQ cities". They're big enough cities that they're bound to have good BBQ--if you search hard enough to find the right place. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 01:49:07 PM
I would view the "best BBQ cities" as those which have a number of top tier restaurants, relatively easy to access.

The worst would be any number with no BBQ at all.

But if one includes small cities and towns, a TON more should make the best list, like Soperton, GA or Gadsen, AL.  

The you have a slew of southeastern cities like Birmingham and Shreveport and Little Rock and Columbia ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 01:52:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mNaAoId.png)

Good to see Georgia in the mix.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 01:55:37 PM

Good to see Georgia in the mix.
HA!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 01:57:31 PM
Oh and lulz at best BBQ city list.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 03, 2024, 02:12:53 PM
More ludicrous "rankings" ....  maybe 1-8 are in the running. 

(https://i.imgur.com/5k7pBVi.png)
I would like to see the methodology so I can dynamite it and the list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 02:25:39 PM
Neither LA, Chicago, or NY are "BBQ cities". They're big enough cities that they're bound to have good BBQ--if you search hard enough to find the right place.
You can throw Houston and San Antonio in there as well.  They both have a couple of decent BBQ joints, but for a city that's multiple times the size of Austin, Houston has maybe 1/4 as many good BBQ places.  And it drops to maybe 1/10th if you consider Austin and Central Texas as a single region.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 03, 2024, 02:28:15 PM
I would view the "best BBQ cities" as those which have a number of top tier restaurants, relatively easy to access.

The worst would be any number with no BBQ at all.

But if one includes small cities and towns, a TON more should make the best list, like Soperton, GA or Gadsen, AL. 

The you have a slew of southeastern cities like Birmingham and Shreveport and Little Rock and Columbia ...
My thoughts exactly.  
It's just nonsense to suggest none of the top BBQ cities are east of Memphis and south of NYC, lol.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 03, 2024, 02:30:58 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mNaAoId.png)

Good to see Georgia in the mix.
The gap between 5 and 6 doesn't seem statistically feesible. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 03, 2024, 02:41:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/mNaAoId.png)

Good to see Georgia in the mix.
Maybe we don't need a Department of Education.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 03, 2024, 02:43:06 PM
Neither LA, Chicago, or NY are "BBQ cities". They're big enough cities that they're bound to have good BBQ--if you search hard enough to find the right place.
Can't speak to the others, but the bolded has come a long way in the past 20 years or so. You don't have to look too hard to find a good spot anymore.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 02:59:15 PM
Can't speak to the others, but the bolded has come a long way in the past 20 years or so. You don't have to look too hard to find a good spot anymore.
You can find good Italian food in Austin and nobody's ever going to call Austin an "Italian-food city."  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 03:24:52 PM
I found great Indian and Persian food here.  

But no French. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 03, 2024, 03:31:54 PM
You can find good Italian food in Austin and nobody's ever going to call Austin an "Italian-food city." 
Didn't say Chicago was a BBQ city. I just said it's easier to find these days.

No need to be so sensative. 


;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 03:56:17 PM
Didn't say Chicago was a BBQ city. I just said it's easier to find these days.

No need to be so sensative.


;)
You were responding defensively about CD's statement that Chicago isn't a "BBQ city."  Having lived my entire life in the single best BBQ city in the state, therefore the country, therefore the world, and having our family own and operate a BBQ restaurant in that city for a decade of my life, I can assure you that Chicago isn't a "BBQ city" regardless of being able to find some decent places there, these days.

You call it sensativity, I'm simply employing specificity. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 03:58:04 PM
I found great Indian and Persian food here. 

But no French.
That's so weird to me.  We have several excellent French restaurants here.  One is even semi-affordable!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 03, 2024, 04:05:29 PM
I need to move. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 04:17:30 PM
I need to move.
Wait, I meant, Austin has no French food whatsoever.  Also has the inside out mist and no beer and roaming gangs of kidney thieves, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 03, 2024, 07:03:02 PM
I have no stats but I'd bet a dollar that pork ribs are the most popular form of American bbq, and Texas ain't the pork rib king.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 03, 2024, 07:12:48 PM
I have no stats but I'd bet a dollar that pork ribs are the most popular form of American bbq, and Texas ain't the pork rib king.
True, but a good number of them make pork ribs and call it BBQ, and it still just ain't so. 

Like the people that put them in their oven. Or that put them in their crock pot. 

Or my old man, who would boil the ribs until tender, throw them on the grill, and sauce them. 

Just because you throw BBQ sauce on some ribs doesn't mean you've BBQ'd ribs. 

(We're not gonna talk about my sous vide ribs BTW.)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 08:48:28 PM
I have no stats but I'd bet a dollar that pork ribs are the most popular form of American bbq, and Texas ain't the pork rib king.
Pork spare ribs are the #2 protein at any Texas BBQ restaurant and Texas does them as well as or better than anywhere else.  It's pulled pork that other areas do better, or at least more commonly, than Texas.

And all those places that put weird vinegary shit sauce on their pulled pork, suck too.

So, yeah, no-- I'm not giving any region an edge over Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 03, 2024, 08:54:08 PM
Pork spare ribs are the #2 protein at any Texas BBQ restaurant and Texas does them as well as or better than anywhere else.  It's pulled pork that other areas do better, or at least more commonly, than Texas.

And all those places that put weird vinegary shit sauce on their pulled pork, suck too.

So, yeah, no-- I'm not giving any region an edge over Texas.
#2 ain't #1

I don't doubt that Texas produces great ribs. So does Columbus. So does North Dakota. So does my grill. But places that specialize in the most popular dish are gonna get the nod for the best BBQ.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 03, 2024, 08:55:57 PM
#2 ain't #1
No you're completely right,  #1 is the single best BBQ protein on the planet, and outside of Texas everybody screws it up.

Thanks for pointing that out and proving me correct. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 04, 2024, 12:15:45 AM
Pork spare ribs are the #2 protein at any Texas BBQ restaurant and Texas does them as well as or better than anywhere else.  It's pulled pork that other areas do better, or at least more commonly, than Texas.

And all those places that put weird vinegary shit sauce on their pulled pork, suck too.

I believe that no mustard-based sauce belongs anywhere near anything (Carolina style, from where I'm from).  

BUT pulled pork infused with a vinegar/tomato-based sauce is HEAVEN. 
Rural GA is where it's at.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 04, 2024, 07:18:28 AM
You were responding defensively about CD's statement that Chicago isn't a "BBQ city."  Having lived my entire life in the single best BBQ city in the state, therefore the country, therefore the world, and having our family own and operate a BBQ restaurant in that city for a decade of my life, I can assure you that Chicago isn't a "BBQ city" regardless of being able to find some decent places there, these days.

You call it sensativity, I'm simply employing specificity. :)
No, I was responding to this statement:


Neither LA, Chicago, or NY are "BBQ cities". They're big enough cities that they're bound to have good BBQ--if you search hard enough to find the right place.

All I said is you don't have to search "hard enough" anymore. BWAR hasn't lived in Chicago for decades.

Back then, BBQ was mostly South Side, so you had to 1) look hard and 2) decide if it was safe to go.

Anyway, a buddy of mine owns this place in Palatine, where I moved here from. Good Eats. I'll be eating there next week.

Home - Chicago Culinary Kitchen (https://chicagoculinarykitchen.com/)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 04, 2024, 07:43:56 AM
I believe that no mustard-based sauce belongs anywhere near anything (Carolina style, from where I'm from). 
I see your days of being wrong are certainly coming to a middle.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 04, 2024, 07:44:34 AM
I believe that no mustard-based sauce belongs anywhere near anything (Carolina style, from where I'm from). 

BUT pulled pork infused with a vinegar/tomato-based sauce is HEAVEN. 
Rural GA is where it's at.

I'm actually just playing around a little bit, I know this is a popular and common way to make it, and it turns out pretty tasty.

Just my own personal opinion, but I've made a lot of BBQ in a lot of different ways, and for me, I think pulled pork is better without the sauce.  I make mine by capturing the drippings throughout the smoke, and then reintroducing them when shredding.  Keeps it moist and juicy and full of the pork's own natural delicious flavors, without introducing vinegar, which I don't like in BBQ'd meats.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 04, 2024, 07:48:29 AM
No you're completely right,  #1 is the single best BBQ protein on the planet, and outside of Texas everybody screws it up.

Thanks for pointing that out and proving me correct.
Can't compete with pork ribs, which come with their own utensil cooked right in. Can't compete with the Lord.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 07:49:21 AM
The BBQ around Raliegh didn't do ribs much, back in the day at least, it was pulled pork and ... more pulled pork, with that vinegary sauce.  It would often be grey in appearance, and not terrible appetizing in color.  A typical lower rent place would serve that and hush puppies and slaw and maybe white bread.

Now I'm hungry and I haven't had my eggs yet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 04, 2024, 07:51:15 AM
Pork spare ribs are the #2 protein at any Texas BBQ restaurant and Texas does them as well as or better than anywhere else.  It's pulled pork that other areas do better, or at least more commonly, than Texas.

And all those places that put weird vinegary shit sauce on their pulled pork, suck too.

So, yeah, no-- I'm not giving any region an edge over Texas.
You shouldn’t.

Obviously No. 1 is Texas. And No. 2 is people who learned in Texas and carry the style elsewhere. Obviously you get variations in level of quality, but some good stuff there. 

I tend to prefer SC after that, in part because they build a better complete meal than everyone else and do pork well (also, they tend to roll out a big tent Re: sauce, and I like the choices)

I enjoy a bit of the vinegar sauce. But NC chops their pork, which is bad, and insists on a range of sides that are, pardon my language, flat bullshit.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 07:56:00 AM
I got used to eastern NC BBQ when I was there, just as I got used to Cincy chili when I was there.  I like nearly everything (not liver).  

There is a place on the NC/SC coast where a small town has something like 20 seafood restaurants, all clustered together called Calabash.  If you're every going by you should stop.  That is the best fried seafood I've ever had, and we do stop there if we're anywhere close.

There is a place near there called Big Nell's Truck Stop that is also superb, hole in the wall, without a wall.  It may be closed now, don't know.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 07:58:10 AM
The obvious issue of mine with such rankings is whoever does the ranking can't possibly have dined enough in each of these cities to have a worthwhile opinion.  It's click bait, and they will often throw in a ringer to get more clicks, like Walla Walla, WA as a top BBQ city.

But it's silly to list small towns in last place without considered small towns competing with the large cities on the other side.

But "we" like rankings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 04, 2024, 08:07:59 AM
The obvious issue of mine with such rankings is whoever does the ranking can't possibly have dined enough in each of these cities to have a worthwhile opinion.  It's click bait, and they will often throw in a ringer to get more clicks, like Walla Walla, WA as a top BBQ city.

But it's silly to list small towns in last place without considered small towns competing with the large cities on the other side.

But "we" like rankings.

I think small towns fall into much the same category as big cities with respect to being called a "BBQ town."  Sure, lots of small towns have a good BBQ joint. Maybe two.  But that's not necessarily their calling card, it's just a restaurant that happens to be there.

We have no idea what metrics the "ranking" used and it's obviously click-bait.  But we can always design our own way to rate these things.

Upthread I think it was you that basically called out a city having a "concentration" of good BBQ restaurants, as being the main criterion.  Or another way to look at it, is having a high ratio of good BBQ restaurants per capita. I'd agree with that. So that excludes big cities like LA that probably have a few good ones, but spread across millions of people it doesn't amount to much.  Or tiny towns that have a good one, but such a low population that it doesn't register.

I also think there's an idea of "BBQ Culture" that goes into the mix.  LA has no BBQ culture.  Austin, Memphis, Kansas City, and the other traditional BBQ cities, obviously do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 04, 2024, 08:08:09 AM
You shouldn’t.

Obviously No. 1 is Texas. And No. 2 is people who learned in Texas and carry the style elsewhere. Obviously you get variations in level of quality, but some good stuff there.

I tend to prefer SC after that, in part because they build a better complete meal than everyone else and do pork well (also, they tend to roll out a big tent Re: sauce, and I like the choices)

I enjoy a bit of the vinegar sauce. But NC chops their pork, which is bad, and insists on a range of sides that are, pardon my language, flat bullshit.
That's my buddy Greg, who I posted about above.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 08:13:44 AM
I've remarked before that our favorite place in ATL is Fox Bros, and they hail from Texas.  This new place going to open near us might be good competition.

We've tried several other places that make the "top ten lists", have one yet to try really.  The others are "OK".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 04, 2024, 08:14:37 AM
No, I was responding to this statement:

All I said is you don't have to search "hard enough" anymore. BWAR hasn't lived in Chicago for decades.

Back then, BBQ was mostly South Side, so you had to 1) look hard and 2) decide if it was safe to go.

Anyway, a buddy of mine owns this place in Palatine, where I moved here from. Good Eats. I'll be eating there next week.

Home - Chicago Culinary Kitchen (https://chicagoculinarykitchen.com/)




Menu looks legit, I'd eat that.  Love seeing chicken on the menu, smoked yardbird is an underrated dish.  It used to be super-common at Texas BBQ joints but for some reason seems to have somewhat fallen out of favor.  Smoked turkey is another delicious one that is less common on restaurant menus.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 04, 2024, 08:16:06 AM
I've remarked before that our favorite place in ATL is Fox Bros, and they hail from Texas.  This new place going to open near us might be good competition.

We've tried several other places that make the "top ten lists", have one yet to try really.  The others are "OK".
Yeah the new one is a John Lewis restaurant I believe.  He's fantastic, I think you'll like his stuff.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 04, 2024, 08:21:10 AM
Menu looks legit, I'd eat that.  Love seeing chicken on the menu, smoked yardbird is an underrated dish.  It used to be super-common at Texas BBQ joints but for some reason seems to have somewhat fallen out of favor.  Smoked turkey is another delicious one that is less common on restaurant menus.
I think you would approve of the food. Interesting wife. I used to go to the gym with her.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 08:25:41 AM
New barbecue restaurant coming to Ansley Mall – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/new-barbecue-restaurant-coming-ansley-mall/4GOFJZNGAJGZBFQ6B2DX7BX3IU/)

The restaurant is known for having Central Texas-style barbecue and opened up its first location in 2015, according to its website. (https://www.lewisbarbecue.com/about/)
It is unclear where in the mall the restaurant will be located.
The restaurant said it hopes to open sometime in 2025.

Lewis Barbecue Charleston

🔥Central Texas-style Barbecue in Charleston
🌮Mexican Food & Drink @rancholewis (https://www.instagram.com/rancholewis/)
464 N Nassau St, Charleston, South Carolina 29403


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 04, 2024, 08:29:57 AM
The Jamaicans perfected BBQ chicken. I'm hoping for more African fusion BBQ - goat is great. We have some african places in C0Bus, but none that really play up BBQ that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 04, 2024, 08:30:23 AM
I've not found great BBQ here in Florida, but I've also not looked hard at it.

I'm told to try this one. It's rather close. I suspect there is more BBQ as you move North in this State.

(7) Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/thatbbqplacematlacha/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 08:31:17 AM
Ansley Mall is kind of interesting, a relic from maybe 1960, and always packed.  "Our" Kroger is next door to it.  Now the Beltline runs just behind it and someone built a bridge to connect the mall and Beltline.  I expect more restaurants and bars to open there soonish. 

It's an old outdoor mall that isn't swanky at all, it's "OK", but very popular, I guess it's the only mall nearish us.  They have a wine shop I don't much like and a few restaurants now and a gym of some sort and a rather high end cooking store.  In a day when malls all over are closing, it's interesting.

Location location and something else.

(https://i.imgur.com/7V4BEFD.png)

Lewis Barbecue Greenville | Hours + Location | Lewis Barbecue | Barbecue Restaurant in Charleston, SC (https://www.lewisbarbecue.com/location/lewis-barbecue-greenville/)

Menu looks solid.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 04, 2024, 08:32:12 AM
Yeah the new one is a John Lewis restaurant I believe.  He's fantastic, I think you'll like his stuff.
A few years back I tried to go to his place in Charleston. It was good, but it was new then, and you could tell they were still getting things in place. 

I tried to go last month on a visit, but the line stood at least 50 deep and I didn't quite have the time for that. 

Thankfully I have two Daniel Vaughn-approved places within reasonable distances. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 04, 2024, 08:33:12 AM
The Jamaicans perfected BBQ chicken. I'm hoping for more African fusion BBQ - goat is great. We have some african places in C0Bus, but none that really play up BBQ that I'm aware of.
Yep. I hope the Jamaicans are OK today.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 04, 2024, 08:35:07 AM
The Jamaicans perfected BBQ chicken. I'm hoping for more African fusion BBQ - goat is great. We have some african places in C0Bus, but none that really play up BBQ that I'm aware of.
In Mexico they BBQ goats, sheep, and pretty much anything else you can imagine. 

BBQ goat kid is called cabrito and is probably the single best BBQ dish I've ever had.  You can find it here in Austin but it gets more common the further south you go.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 08:36:53 AM
This place is turning into the Big 12 place.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 08:40:45 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/F6FyW7o.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 09:00:48 AM
Oyster Bar & Shellfish Market | Fanny Bay Oysters, British Columbia | Fanny Bay Oysters, British Columbia (http://www.fannybayoysters.com/location/oyster-bar--shellfish-market)

Speaking of seafood, we went to Vancouver, BC last year at this time to celebrate my twins' 35th.  The above is near where my daughter lives and she had not tried it, so we went, it was superb.  Who knew they had seafood in Canada?

She told me there is no Mexican anywhere near her at all for some reason.  Probably not many Mexicans either.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 11:14:24 AM
I have noticed in life that my assessment of the goodness of a thing often reflects my expectations going in to it.  If I anticipated it a lot, perhaps due to "reviews", I often find it to be mediocre, or disappointing, or even not very good.  I heard all the rave reviews about "Hamilton" for example, and as I noted before really wanted to walk out after 10 minutes.  As for restaurants, I notice IF someone says "This place is great", I may find it "OK", but not transcendent.

So, when I stumble onto exceptions, and some place is highly "rated" by whoever, and I find it indeed is great, or to my liking, I figure I probably am on to something.

Likewise, if we try something that looks to be "maybe OK to not so good", I may be surprised on the upside and OVER rate it.  Then next time I go back, I might find it somewhat meh, still not bad, but not great.

The Girl and Fig restaurant in Sonoma is a good example.  I had been told it was almost like the French Laundry, and was exceptional.  We went with another couple, and I was expecting to be somewhat let down, in fact, in my view, it was exceptional.  And not ridiculously pricey.  It was really really good.

the girl & the fig | French Restaurant in Sonoma, CA (thegirlandthefig.com) (https://www.thegirlandthefig.com/)

My wife kept talking up this three star place in Marseille and insisting I go with her and her daughter, and maybe I was in a "fowl" mood or something, after being told I HAD to do.  (I dislike being told I HAD to do a thing.)  (No, I don't.  Except death and taxes.)

Around here, I'm trying to go to different places, it's not easy because we have our favorites.  So, we stopped at the Cypress Bar Badge had mentioned (finally), and I thought it would be decent bar food, but it was a notch above that, on a par with the place next door we like.  

So, if someone is running around the country trying to "rank" BBQ places, they probably suffer from this as well.  They go to X which everyone says is fantastic, and they think it's just OK, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 04, 2024, 11:57:08 AM
[img width=500 height=490.994]https://i.imgur.com/F6FyW7o.png[/img]
I GUARANTEE!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 04, 2024, 12:13:53 PM
Yep. I hope the Jamaicans are OK today.
I know, my wife has family there, not sure what their status is.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 04, 2024, 02:31:00 PM
All I said is you don't have to search "hard enough" anymore. BWAR hasn't lived in Chicago for decades.

Back then, BBQ was mostly South Side, so you had to 1) look hard and 2) decide if it was safe to go.

Anyway, a buddy of mine owns this place in Palatine, where I moved here from. Good Eats. I'll be eating there next week.

Home - Chicago Culinary Kitchen (https://chicagoculinarykitchen.com/)
I'll admit I haven't lived there in a very long time. 

The way I look at it is this. In most of the country, even big cities, there isn't a "critical mass" of discerning diners for certain cuisines. In these places it doesn't mean that you can't find a good example of that cuisine. It means that "restaurant X" which claims to be that cuisine may not actually be a good example of it, but the restaurant will survive because the locals don't know any better. 

Chicago would be a good example of a city that is known for its Greek food. To me that means if I go to a random Greek restaurant, I expect it to be good. If I go to a random greasy sandwich shop and order a gyro, I expect it to be good. Compare that to here in SoCal. There are good Greek restaurants. But I don't have an inherent trust that a random Greek restaurant here, or a sandwich shop with a gyro sandwich on the menu, is going to be good. 

Now compare that to Austin vs Chicago for BBQ. I would expect that in Austin, you literally cannot open a BBQ joint, be mediocre, and survive. The local diners both know better, and have enough other options, that you will not make it. Whereas in Chicago (or suburbs), I believe you can open a mediocre BBQ joint, and survive. Because BBQ is not ingrained into the culture so a lot of diners simply don't know better. (Note: the same is true for BBQ in SoCal.)

Craft beer has come a long way, but there are examples of this too. Say 15 years ago, if you were in Denver or San Diego, any brewery you go to you'd simply expect it to be good. In Atlanta? Nope. Craft beer culture lagged significantly in much of the South (IMHO due a lot to blue laws--prior to 2005 you couldn't sell beer >6% ABV in Georgia so few craft breweries prioritized selling to Georgia). So you could get away with being a mediocre craft brewery because the audience who sought you out might not know any better. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 03:14:28 PM
Sweetwater Brewery is 27 years old. Started by Denverites. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 04, 2024, 04:12:57 PM
Sweetwater Brewery is 27 years old. Started by Denverites.
I'm not saying they had NO good beer, just like Chicago doesn't NOT have good BBQ joints. I enjoyed some Sweetwater and Terrapin stuff back when I lived there in 2005-2007. I lived in Marietta and I enjoyed Wild Wing Cafe just based on the fact that they actually had a good tap list.

But compared to California, or Denver, or Portland, it was pretty much a beer desert.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 04, 2024, 04:14:10 PM
Oh, and "started by Denverites" completely proves my point. There wasn't a local beer culture, but transplants from places where beer was plentiful kicked it off. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 04:55:22 PM
Yup. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 04, 2024, 06:59:39 PM
Speaking of beer - what's your go to beer? I buy Brewdog's Elvis Juice more than anything else. I prefer IPA's, but I don't love the super boozy ones or the ones that are more bitter than anything. It' called a grapefruit IPA, not sure it tastes much of grapefruit but it is pretty floral and fruity without being sweet. Plus they sell it everywhere.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 04, 2024, 07:02:40 PM
Sam Adams lager. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 04, 2024, 09:48:32 PM

If there were a way to rank states by the percentage of the female population that dress up in a patriotic cowgirl get up on Independence Day, we would win in a landslide. Even Texas would be like "dayam." 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 05, 2024, 07:08:46 AM
If there were a way to rank states by the percentage of the female population that dress up in a patriotic cowgirl get up on Independence Day, we would win in a landslide. Even Texas would be like "dayam."
That sounds like and invite to host us on the Fourth, if I've ever heard one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2024, 08:32:15 AM
We had a flight of what appeared to be F-5s circle our area yesterday evening four times.  I didn't know we had F-5s still flying, I had a pretty decent look at them.

I was musing about ATC down at ATL figuring out how to play this.  We don't see much commercial traffic here, but I have arrived several times north of the airport and then swung around to land to the west.

My wife made crepes for dinner, which was a bit odd, but worked for me.  I watched the Braves game, I don't rate them as much better than average this year.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 05, 2024, 08:35:30 AM
crepes on the 4th of July???

why not the funny lookin sausages?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2024, 08:38:39 AM
Whoever cooks here gets to choose what we eat.  We had the sausage things for lunch.  They were just OK.  The skin was tough.

Oh, and I LIKE thin pancakes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 05, 2024, 08:45:00 AM
natural casing
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 05, 2024, 09:32:33 AM
Speaking of beer - what's your go to beer? I buy Brewdog's Elvis Juice more than anything else. I prefer IPA's, but I don't love the super boozy ones or the ones that are more bitter than anything. It' called a grapefruit IPA, not sure it tastes much of grapefruit but it is pretty floral and fruity without being sweet. Plus they sell it everywhere.
While some hops can give a taste of grapefruit, I do find that when it's labeled a "grapefruit IPA" there's some grapefruit juice in the recipe. 

Honestly my go to is just good ol' Stone IPA. One of the original West Coast IPAs, it's not hazy, or fruity. It's clean and bitter, exactly what I'm looking for. 

For non-hoppy / slightly lighter beer, you can't go wrong with a Firestone Walker 805. It's a blonde ale. Or if you want hoppy but lighter, Founders All Day IPA is nice. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2024, 09:38:56 AM
My wife prefers lighter beers, she likes 420, and I do as well, it has made Sweetwater brewery one of the larger "craft" outfits out there.  Nearly all their profit comes from it.  It's a good business model, have one type that sells because it's pretty light but also has taste, and then have money to brew whatever you want not caring if it makes money.  My go to in summer probably is more like a 420.  My go to in winter would vary, I like different tastes at different times.  

My ex father in law had cases of PBR stacked up in his basement.  He'd sit there and pound PBRs all night, drinking a 2-4 usually.  They would often go to this bar in Raliegh that had pretty solid pizza and he'd do a shooter or three of tequila and then pound beers.  I never tried to keep up.  Then he'd drive home, somehow.  He passed away at about 55, after we were divorced.  

I don't usually want the same beer night after night, if I drink beer at all.  I'm sure there are beer rankings out there, and they probably differ quite a lot, like wine "points" etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2024, 11:09:05 AM
My favorite beers are ales and lagers.  Dark and light.  Minimally filtered and clear.

If I had to name a go-to it would be Live Oak Pilz.  It's hot in Austin and the clean flavor of a great pilsner hits the spot 77.3% of the time.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 05, 2024, 11:09:22 AM
If there were a way to rank states by the percentage of the female population that dress up in a patriotic cowgirl get up on Independence Day, we would win in a landslide. Even Texas would be like "dayam."

Your pics are not loading...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2024, 12:11:10 PM
Saturday Down South Top 25 Poll - Saturday Down South (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/saturday-down-south-top-25-poll/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2xm83wqfBOCEnmcFPyukbzZdWiweRqqx32lAae142C7QPMjO_SGuFvP_4_aem_h9Z3q5PQ8VXEv_Obv-FuRw)

As of Wednesday, July 3, 2024, here are the teams that make up the Saturday Down South Top 25:
1. Georgia (7) — 199 points
2. Ohio State (1) — 190
3. Oregon — 183
4. Texas — 179
5. Alabama — 164
6. Ole Miss — 160
7. Mizzou — 140
T8. Penn State — 138
T8. Notre Dame — 138
10. Michigan — 125
11. LSU — 117
12. Florida State — 109
T13. Tennessee — 100


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 05, 2024, 12:11:44 PM
T13. Utah — 100
15. Oklahoma — 88
16. Clemson — 83
17. Kansas State — 59
18. Miami — 48
T19. Oklahoma State — 47
T19. Arizona — 47
21. Iowa — 34
22. Texas A&M — 30
23. USC — 21
24. NC State — 18
25. Louisville — 15
Also receiving votes: Virginia Tech (14), SMU (14), Kansas (12), Kentucky (4), Wisconsin (3), Boise State (2), Iowa State (1)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 06, 2024, 08:00:08 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZD1kOx7.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 06, 2024, 08:55:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/cJRKhqk.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 06, 2024, 02:06:12 PM
This is the face of a story about ugly states? Ok then.

The 10 ugliest American states – does yours make the list? (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/the-10-ugliest-american-states-does-yours-make-the-list/ss-BB1plBns?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ccf9b8fd21c84981b106e17a67f91e91&ei=531#image=1)

(https://i.imgur.com/OHgatqF.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 06, 2024, 06:21:37 PM
[img width=307.992 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/ZD1kOx7.png[/img]
So Bama and Miami won the NC the year they first reached #1.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 06, 2024, 08:10:46 PM
corngrats, I assumed it's happened

Miami in 83 was a fluke
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 06, 2024, 09:38:25 PM
WHY?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 06, 2024, 10:42:41 PM
It was an upset.  And upsets are inevitable.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 07:57:51 AM
yeah, but I REALLY didn't like THAT one :91:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 09:35:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/JqbnP0f.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 09:35:38 AM
all QBs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2024, 09:47:04 AM
all QBs
No other position stands a chance anymore.

The award should be renamed. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 09:51:26 AM
I think a running back "stands a chance", but it usually isn't high.  The days when a running back can carry an entire team to a lofty season is pretty much history.

A Qb handles the ball on almost every play and is THE most important position.  A team won't do well these days without a very competent QB.  And teams that do well get on TV a lot, and their feature QB gets "featured" a lot.  One of them usually will make some spectacular looking plays in some key games ...

An RB MIGHT be in the mix if no QB looks all that relevant.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2024, 10:10:51 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/SlEH9jn.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 10:16:59 AM
a WR/returner should be in the mix

as should a DE or DT or LB

it's the most outstanding player

not the guy that handles the ball the best
not the most TDs
not the best leader
not the most valuable

QBs are usually not the best football player on their own team
they have arm talent - other than that not exceptional athletes 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2024, 10:21:42 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/RKGO0X2.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 10:30:03 AM
I think the dual purpose QBs might be the best overall athlete at times, think Mike Vick, and a few others of his ilk.

I was watching the Braves game last night and the announcers talked about the pitcher who played SS in college, and at some point asked to have a shot at pitching.  They said he would not have been drafted as a SS.  

Marquis Grissom pitched in college and was moved to the outfield at some point, good move for him.  The pitchers I know pretty well are/were really good athletes, I suspect most college QBs are pretty good athletes overall, but the "best athlete" in a team might be a safety often as not.  Wide receiver, MLB, RB ...

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 11:06:58 AM
I think the dual purpose QBs might be the best overall athlete at times, think Mike Vick, and a few others of his ilk.


yup, how many of the ten listed above are dual?
and obviously, they are all "good" athletes, but not the best on their team
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 11:58:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/g6C0xuN.png)

I have no clue ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 03:35:19 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/RKGO0X2.jpeg)
If someone was tasked with defending this list, they'd sit silently.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 03:38:12 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/JqbnP0f.jpeg)
So 5 transfers, 2 of which transferred twice, and a guy that's never started a regular season game.
Looks about right.  
Welcome to 2024.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 07, 2024, 04:42:54 PM
If someone was tasked with defending this list, they'd sit silently.
I have a quibble. For RB's in the Alvarez to present, at Wisconsin.

Yes, Ron Dayne was great.

Gordon and Taylor were better.

Taylor was the best of the lot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 04:49:20 PM
Right.
Taylor is the first RB to have a better 3-year resume than Walker.  Yet Walker is #1 and Taylor is.....nowhere.
Sanders is at #5, suggesting peak is important, but Gordon is....nowhere.

Staubach on any of these lists is lazy.
.
It's just a grab-bag of consensus guys in whatever order.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 05:05:12 PM
It’s some opinion from.   Bleacher report. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 05:26:34 PM
Someone should tell them I could replace their whole college football staff and save them a lot of money w/ better content.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 05:27:45 PM
Their objective is to get noticed.  To do that, you put out rankings with which folks disagree.  Then you are "relevant", somehow.

This is true for many such rankings.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 07, 2024, 06:16:50 PM
Atlanta is the most affordable travel destination, according to a new study – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/atlanta-is-most-affordable-travel-destination-according-new-study/ST5GQHWH7VEWPC2UAKDBS3IB2Y/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem_manual&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1XZFomD1Ku9RARrh__52AvLN0-F3ZornaDgdcHGguZQJmMEUPfaA-MLW0_aem_rSwP_AWlZgSSKI9Gmmx54w)

Seems like some small town in Mississippi might be cheapest.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 06:45:52 PM
or Iowa or nebraska, but probably South Dakota
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 08:25:56 PM
Their objective is to get noticed.  To do that, you put out rankings with which folks disagree.  Then you are "relevant", somehow.

This is true for many such rankings.
Then I'd drive down their clicks/eyeballs with pride.  At least it would be genuine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 07, 2024, 09:12:48 PM
So 5 transfers, 2 of which transferred twice, and a guy that's never started a regular season game.
Looks about right. 
Welcome to 2024.
Hmmm. That's actually kinda interesting. 

So below is the list of first-year starters as full-time guys since the turn of the century. I'm not sure how to place a guy like Burrow, who was kinda fine as a first-year starter and then blew up. Lamar was somewhere between that and a first-year starter.

2003 - First-year starter

2007 - First-year starter
2010 - JuCo guy, first year as a starter at a 4-year school
2012 - First-year starter
2013 - First-year starter
2018 - First-year starter
2021 - First-year starter
2022 - First-year starter
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 07, 2024, 10:16:47 PM
Hmmm. That's actually kinda interesting.

So below is the list of first-year starters as full-time guys since the turn of the century. I'm not sure how to place a guy like Burrow, who was kinda fine as a first-year starter and then blew up. Lamar was somewhere between that and a first-year starter.

2003 - First-year starter

2007 - First-year starter
2010 - JuCo guy, first year as a starter at a 4-year school
2012 - First-year starter
2013 - First-year starter
2018 - First-year starter
2021 - First-year starter
2022 - First-year starter

It's 'just' QB, but this is why rankings or ratings obsessed with returning starters is silly.  Yes, known is preferable to unknown, but it doesn't make it better.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 07, 2024, 10:47:38 PM
The midwest state that has become a factory for developing NFL players ranks ahead of Texas, Florida, California and Ohio.

DOUG SAMUELS JUL 3, 2024

At a rate of 12.5 NFL players per million residents, Iowa ranks just below states like Georgia (12.6), Alabama (12.7), and a bit further behind the national leaders of churning out NFL talent like Mississippi (14.5) and Louisiana (15).

https://footballscoop.com/news/theres-a-very-surprising-midwest-state-churning-out-nfl-talent (https://footballscoop.com/news/theres-a-very-surprising-midwest-state-churning-out-nfl-talent)

According to the data, the national average per state is 5.2 NFL players per million residents. States right around that national average include Michigan (5.4), North Carolina (5.7), and Texas (5.7).

Other relative surprises from the data:

Nebraska ranking higher than Texas (6.1)
Hawaii and Florida with the same (7.5)
Vermont is the only state with zero current NFL players
New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island all under 1 NFL player per million residents
Alaska (2.7) with a better figure than Arkansas (2.3), Washington (2.2), and North Dakota (2.6)
Georgia has FOUR times the number of NFL players as New York despite half the population.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 08, 2024, 07:58:35 AM
The midwest state that has become a factory for developing NFL players ranks ahead of Texas, Florida, California and Ohio.

DOUG SAMUELS JUL 3, 2024

At a rate of 12.5 NFL players per million residents, Iowa ranks just below states like Georgia (12.6), Alabama (12.7), and a bit further behind the national leaders of churning out NFL talent like Mississippi (14.5) and Louisiana (15).

https://footballscoop.com/news/theres-a-very-surprising-midwest-state-churning-out-nfl-talent (https://footballscoop.com/news/theres-a-very-surprising-midwest-state-churning-out-nfl-talent)

According to the data, the national average per state is 5.2 NFL players per million residents. States right around that national average include Michigan (5.4), North Carolina (5.7), and Texas (5.7).

Other relative surprises from the data:

Nebraska ranking higher than Texas (6.1)
Hawaii and Florida with the same (7.5)
Vermont is the only state with zero current NFL players
New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island all under 1 NFL player per million residents
Alaska (2.7) with a better figure than Arkansas (2.3), Washington (2.2), and North Dakota (2.6)
Georgia has FOUR times the number of NFL players as New York despite half the population.

Retirees bring Florida's numbers down with this one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 08, 2024, 09:25:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ciopKw2.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 08, 2024, 12:00:04 PM
Great Wall of Georgia gets bigger: Average size of UGA's incoming offensive linemen is 6-foot-7, 340 pounds - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/great-wall-of-georgia-gets-bigger-average-size-of-ugas-incoming-offensive-linemen-is-6-foot-7-340-pounds/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1BZzo3OA2OnosB5if0i1rFZHevAbwyaiXSck8_831NUU2dMZ7q16Xs9zY_aem_q9cKvGJ4roJ1Ne1Ut6htcA)

Holy Cows.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 08, 2024, 12:50:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3ByxILd.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2024, 11:51:18 AM
Atlanta brewery named 2nd best in the country at U.S. Open Beer Championships (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/monday-night-brewing-u-s-open-beer-championships?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2LZu-5b2gMRX1t2Iq3_7Ft4WuODEXDsy-YHBGBUt9RXe4EHYkp1UxPhSI_aem__xiDS9l67D4B3RdXA6jfBw)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 10, 2024, 12:34:55 PM
Take it to the beer thread!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 10, 2024, 12:35:54 PM
I'm still amazed how many rankings exist somewhere.  We should rank all the rankings, would get a ton of hits.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 10, 2024, 08:29:33 PM
Atlanta brewery named 2nd best in the country at U.S. Open Beer Championships (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/monday-night-brewing-u-s-open-beer-championships?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2LZu-5b2gMRX1t2Iq3_7Ft4WuODEXDsy-YHBGBUt9RXe4EHYkp1UxPhSI_aem__xiDS9l67D4B3RdXA6jfBw)
If you're not first you're last 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2024, 08:27:25 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/6JvqTZb.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2024, 08:29:01 AM
Odd town names in Georgia | WSAV-TV (https://www.wsav.com/now/odd-town-names-in-georgia/)

I think "Between" is more odd.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2024, 09:37:15 AM
I like beer bottle crossing
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2024, 09:39:19 AM
I've been to Coward and Volcano, that's it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2024, 09:40:22 AM
I've been to What Cheer
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 11, 2024, 10:40:51 AM
I've been to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 11, 2024, 11:34:18 AM
I've been to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.


So which was it?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 11, 2024, 11:34:58 AM
It's going to be 121 degrees in Catfish Paradise today.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 11, 2024, 11:47:03 AM
So which was it?
Both.  Might as well be named FAFO, New Mexico.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 11, 2024, 02:05:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8XpCtcA.png)

OK then.  I find smaller less crowded airports to be less stressful, by a lot.  San Diego's was nice.+

Hartsfield-Jackson named 2nd least stressful airport in the country (fox5atlanta.com) (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/hartsfield-jackson-least-stressful-airport-study?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0xUKLKx56EiYjt4t1DZh_SpUJ6_SDhvTYBxTrkxl2ZInoRYsl3zJaMBQE_aem_mEttpxafrUcFwXp5zSsEbQ)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 11, 2024, 02:10:16 PM
I'll be there Saturday, on my way to Augusta.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 11, 2024, 03:49:48 PM
I've stated it many times but I've always been a big fan of John Wayne Airport in Orange County, CA.  Smaller, less crowded, pretty easy in and out.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 11, 2024, 10:25:19 PM
BLOOMINGTON, Minn. (FOX 9) - The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has been named the No. 1 airport in the United States, according to a new survey list.

The MSP airport saw nearly 35 million passengers in 2023, and was ranked among hundreds of survey participants for categories that included access, check-in and security, restaurants and bars, shopping, and design.


In 2023, MSP was ranked No. 4 in the survey.

MSP is the 19th busiest commercial airport in the U.S., the second-largest hub for Delta Air Lines, and the hometown base for Sun Country Airlines.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 13, 2024, 08:27:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Dl0rnkL.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 13, 2024, 08:38:21 AM
San Diego has a nice airport.  The rental car place is quite far from it though, and a bus ride.

Savannah has a nice airport, small of course, which helps.

Cincinnati's airport is "OK", much smaller than it once was pre2008.

We used to fly out of Dayton some.  It was cheaper, and if you stayed overnight at an airport motel, they'd let you park your car there for a week for free.

Louisville, same thing.

I've never flown into or out of JFK.  I think I've been to every major US airport, not Kansas City if that counts as one.  

West Jet is awful.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 13, 2024, 01:05:58 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3t1tpzF.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 13, 2024, 08:50:35 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/6OqDHvL.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 14, 2024, 09:33:38 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/3t1tpzF.png)


Cities on the list I've been to:

Charleston, SC - Kind of a weird inclusion to me, interesting historical city, some good food, very hot in summer (duh).  We'll go back sometime, but it's not a place either of us dream of going.

Barcelona - Yeah, one of our favorite cities in Europe, very walkable, nice beaches, good food, interesting sites.  Good.

Rome - Only there for a day, my wife wants to go back for several, I think it would be great too.

Seoul - I liked it a lot, my wife preferred Tokyo, massive city, we had some good food, stayed at a great hotel, not that much real history since the place was bombed out in the war.

Tokyo - Interesting, we had a great walking tour of 8 hours that was exhausting but interesting.  Massive city of course, the rail transit was confusing but our guide did it for us.  Also bombed out in 1945.  

Istanbul - Looks interesting "pn paper", we're going in September for 8 days.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 14, 2024, 09:39:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/TDpNvwy.png)

NIL may figure into this soon.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 14, 2024, 10:11:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7zuIIea.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 14, 2024, 08:03:59 PM
the Huskers have a good chance at a top 10 D-line this season
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 14, 2024, 11:51:42 PM
the Huskers have a good chance at a top 10 D-line this season
At least in the conference, amirite?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: longhorn320 on July 15, 2024, 12:00:01 AM
What is their best record in the last 10 years?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 15, 2024, 02:12:58 AM
What is their best record in the last 10 years?
It was 9-4.
Before last year, Texas' best record in the last 10 years was......10-4.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 08:37:31 AM
What is their best record in the last 10 years?
the D-line's record?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 08:41:35 AM
not as good as Texas in Rushing defense, but yards per rush aren't too bad  better than Iowa(which might surprise some folks)

(https://i.imgur.com/4Vts2uJ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 08:49:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/KvFDOkr.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 08:52:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/KAweqFY.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 09:00:55 AM
of course, the big stat is that they bring back the entire deep chart of their D-line

(https://i.imgur.com/huVR4dh.png)

along with the D-coordinator and D-line coach
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 15, 2024, 09:06:43 AM
One aspect of a good statistical defense is having a ball control offense on the field with few TOs.  Another aspect is how deep you are, if your 2s are almost as good as your 1s, you'll at least have a fresh defense that won't be tired.

I was a bit surprised to see the Dawgs relatively low in that "ranking", but whatever.  They have a lot of "D" returning, and their 2s play a lot.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 09:21:40 AM
another aspect is to play a slate of Big Ten West teams that struggle with offense

the Husker's offense wasn't good at controlling the ball - TOP - or scoring TDs

it was good at turning the ball over to the opponent.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 15, 2024, 09:32:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/535KttV.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 09:36:05 AM
Rhule has a past history of developing players.

We shall see.

hopefully, see something positive in season 2

like Temple and Baylor
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 11:08:21 AM
Donato's pizza any good?

apparently, Red Robin is serving it now
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 15, 2024, 11:11:20 AM
Donato's pizza any good?

apparently, Red Robin is serving it now
I've only had it once... Earlier this year when I was in Indy. We got in late, nothing available at the hotel, so we ordered via Grubhub. It had a decent rating on Grubhub so thought it might be alright.

Took an hour to get to us, so it wasn't still hot. As CD might say, I was "unimpressed." Not sure I would have changed my opinion one iota if it had arrived hot and fresh, either. Seemed like cheap, bad, chain restaurant delivery pizza.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 11:22:19 AM
good to know

probably stick with the burger

red robin does a good burger
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 15, 2024, 11:49:39 AM
We had Donato's in Cincy, they were probably the best of the chain places.  I'd get Papa John's a lot because they were cheap and my kids liked them.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 15, 2024, 11:55:30 AM
Donato's pizza any good?

apparently, Red Robin is serving it now
It's all right for chain pizza, if you like thin crust edge to edge style. My kids love it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 07:18:19 PM
Live Comfortably on $20 an Hour in These 15 States with the Lowest Cost of Living

Check out the 15 U.S. states where a single person can afford basic expenses on $20 an hour:

(https://i.imgur.com/gTz3tvE.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on July 15, 2024, 07:35:53 PM
Dominos has gotten better in the last 10 years. Where I live it's the only pizza worth a damn.

Most of the pizza around here is the super-thin-crust cut into squares. It's fine if you're in the mood for it, but there is also a tendency to only cook the pizza long enough to barely melt the cheese in the middle. It's disgusting. That type of pizza needs to be cooked until the cheese gets dark brown.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 15, 2024, 08:24:04 PM
Live Comfortably on $20 an Hour in These 15 States with the Lowest Cost of Living

Check out the 15 U.S. states where a single person can afford basic expenses on $20 an hour:

[img width=347.983 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/gTz3tvE.png[/img]
Just the sh*thole states, as a certain someone would label them?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 15, 2024, 10:04:39 PM
I've thought about moving south to Arkansas for retirement

much less cold and snow

property seems inexpensive

golf courses readily available for decent prices

why wouldn't Kansas be on the list?  between nebraska and Oklahomo and Mizzou
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 07:26:08 AM
Dominos has gotten better in the last 10 years. Where I live it's the only pizza worth a damn.

Most of the pizza around here is the super-thin-crust cut into squares. It's fine if you're in the mood for it, but there is also a tendency to only cook the pizza long enough to barely melt the cheese in the middle. It's disgusting. That type of pizza needs to be cooked until the cheese gets dark brown.
That kind of pizza (tavern) needs to be cooked until the crust is crispy, like a cracker. I always specify that when I order.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2024, 07:27:43 AM
It's a weird list, and probably in accurate.  The more rural states would almost always have lower costs.  Anything in about any city gets expensive.

And of course parts of rural Georgia have low costs, parts of urban Atlanta do not, so even upstate New York probably has some areas with lower costs.

Ugh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 07:36:41 AM
Madison, WI is not a cheap place to live, at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 08:45:28 AM
Live Comfortably on $20 an Hour in These 15 States with the Lowest Cost of Living

Check out the 15 U.S. states where a single person can afford basic expenses on $20 an hour:

(https://i.imgur.com/gTz3tvE.png)
I always find lists like this a little silly, because when push comes to shove, states are anything but monolithic (in some ways, cities too).

90% of the board would prefer Florida to California, and probably be kicking and screaming the whole way to the latter state. But if offered the choice between being in Belle Glade and B.R.A.D’s neighbor, they’re westward bound.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 08:49:02 AM
Belle Glade is a place you drive through without stopping.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2024, 08:49:10 AM
My point in this thread is that MOST rankings are silly, in my view (ugh), and yet they persist and multiply.  Obviously, one area in a state can be pretty cheap and a hundred miles away be very expensive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2024, 08:51:43 AM
The problem with California, for me, is income taxes.  I wouldn't mind at all living in much of eastern California.

My wife said she did not like San Diego as a place to live, we've been there a few times for a week or so.  The part of SF where our son lives is quite nice, and his apartment is not bizarely expensive.  He's near the baseball field, a mile or so.  Still not very green.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 16, 2024, 08:59:23 AM
and property taxes and sales tax and fuel tax and..........
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 09:20:15 AM
Top states for business in 2024 | Fox Business (https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/top-5-states-business-2024)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 16, 2024, 10:45:20 AM
Belle Glade is a place you drive through without stopping.
You could stop to chew on some sugar cane.  Or pick an orange.  Or watch some good high school football.

When it comes to lists of states, you don't want to be near the top of any list headed by West Virginia.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 11:06:29 AM
You could stop to chew on some sugar cane.  Or pick an orange.  Or watch some good high school football.

When it comes to lists of states, you don't want to be near the top of any list headed by West Virginia.
They produce a lot of NFL talent for their size, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 02:18:26 PM
The problem with California, for me, is income taxes.  I wouldn't mind at all living in much of eastern California.

My wife said she did not like San Diego as a place to live, we've been there a few times for a week or so.  The part of SF where our son lives is quite nice, and his apartment is not bizarely expensive.  He's near the baseball field, a mile or so.  Still not very green.
As a small note, I assume you mean more northern CA? Where’s it’s forested and such.

Just because a lot of “eastern” Ca. is hit and deserts. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 16, 2024, 02:20:20 PM
As a small note, I assume you mean more northern CA? Where’s it’s forested and such.

Just because a lot of “eastern” Ca. is hit and deserts.
The area east of San Francisco, though the north would be nice in spots as well.  I spent some time in Calaveras County and liked the area a lot.  Even nice houses were not overly expensive.

I didn't like Palm Springs further south.  You are right, eastern California is a large swath.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 02:31:02 PM
Belle Glade is a place you drive through without stopping.
That’s why I picked it. 

I had a friend in the football space who described it as like a third world country. Also read a book about the place that was good. 

Their football team is messy, but good. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 02:36:29 PM
The area east of San Francisco, though the north would be nice in spots as well.  I spent some time in Calaveras County and liked the area a lot.  Even nice houses were not overly expensive.

I didn't like Palm Springs further south.  You are right, eastern California is a large swath.
Out of college, I had a couple chances to live out that way, east of Palm Springs and east of Bakersfield. 

Those were not taken for various reasons. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 16, 2024, 02:39:22 PM
That’s why I picked it.

I had a friend in the football space who described it as like a third world country. Also read a book about the place that was good.

Their football team is messy, but good.
If I dropped you there blindfolded, you would not know you're in Florida. When people think Florida, they think of the coasts. Belle Glade is not that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 02:54:23 PM
If I dropped you there blindfolded, you would not know you're in Florida. When people think Florida, they think of the coasts. Belle Glade is not that.
I mean, that’s how states are, right? They’re usually many things. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 16, 2024, 03:01:32 PM
Out of college, I had a couple chances to live out that way, east of Palm Springs and east of Bakersfield.

Those were not taken for various reasons.
Yep. I had a choice between Fort Wayne IN and San Jose CA. That was an easy decision.

If it had been between Fort Wayne and east of Bakersfield or Palm Springs, I might have taken the Fort Wayne job. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 03:07:57 PM
Yep. I had a choice between Fort Wayne IN and San Jose CA. That was an easy decision.

If it had been between Fort Wayne and east of Bakersfield or Palm Springs, I might have taken the Fort Wayne job.
I can imagine points in my life where I’d pick Fort Wayne. 

(I also assume this was a different San Jose than the one now)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 16, 2024, 03:18:27 PM
I can imagine points in my life where I’d pick Fort Wayne.

(I also assume this was a different San Jose than the one now)
I started at the beginning of 2001, so there are definitely some things different about SJ now. I don't go up there often but when I was last there (mid-2022?) it definitely looked like homelessness was running rampant. 

But as with anything else, there are good areas and bad areas, and so I'd do my best not to live in one of the bad ones. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on July 16, 2024, 03:26:16 PM
I started at the beginning of 2001, so there are definitely some things different about SJ now. I don't go up there often but when I was last there (mid-2022?) it definitely looked like homelessness was running rampant.

But as with anything else, there are good areas and bad areas, and so I'd do my best not to live in one of the bad ones.
I more meant one bedroom apts not running $2,600 per month. 

I turned down one job in part because the other had a similar salary in a cheaper place. (It was also a job with more potential)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 17, 2024, 02:02:20 PM
America's Top States for Business: The full rankings (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/11/americas-top-states-for-business-full-rankings.html)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2024, 08:59:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/S2HriKs.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on July 18, 2024, 09:42:41 AM
Donato's pizza any good?

apparently, Red Robin is serving it now
I grew up on it. For chain, it is probably my favorite. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2024, 09:49:04 AM
I grew up on it. For chain, it is probably my favorite.
I like Red Robin, but not chain pizza.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on July 18, 2024, 10:02:07 AM
I will say, I have taken people to Donato's that have never had it and every one of them has like it. I suggest people give it a try. Now, I've not had it at a Red Robin, so I have no idea how much close they would be to the original. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on July 18, 2024, 02:07:49 PM
I have love Donatos corn meal dusted crust.  Donatos is by far my favorite chain pizza. Alos prefer their non-sweet sauce.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on July 18, 2024, 02:27:15 PM
They make a pretty tasty meatball sub. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2024, 04:38:44 PM
These 10 U.S. states have America’s worst economies in 2024 (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-10-u-s-states-have-america-s-worst-economies-in-2024/ar-BB1qdLjN?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=5e87a17669d8476da3017dd2bc22d3b6&ei=18)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2024, 05:45:08 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ArV3EGv.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on July 18, 2024, 06:37:11 PM
Click bait.  In no legit survey could one put Kyle Field that low.  As a facility it is superior to most nfl stadiums and all of the ones above it here. 

Some of that top 12 may have good l or great atmospheres but many are quite dumpy as a facility and need tons of work.  I've been to 12 of that top 13.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2024, 06:45:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ArV3EGv.jpeg)
Rose Bowl Stadium is only that when it hosts the Rose Bowl. Beyond that it is not a great venue at all. And even that Rose Bowl Game is now just about moot with the PAC being dead.

I don't get Michigan Stadium. That's where you go if you want a quiet game. Great tailgating.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 18, 2024, 08:32:14 PM
I will say, I have taken people to Donato's that have never had it and every one of them has like it. I suggest people give it a try. Now, I've not had it at a Red Robin, so I have no idea how much close they would be to the original.
My daughter works there. One time, we showed up to embarrass her and make her serve us. I was surprised at how much better the pizza was hot and fresh out the oven. Which,, I mean, shouldn't actually be surprising. I think of people saying their memories at how good Pizza Hut used to be, but maybe part of that was they actually ate it at the restaurant instead of having it delivered.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 18, 2024, 09:06:13 PM
Pizza Hut used to have like 8 lbs of cheese per pizza. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2024, 09:09:13 PM
I can't get delivery 15 miles out of the city, but..........

I can't imagine getting food delivered or as take-out

I'd rather just cook it myself.  I like it fresh out of the oven or the skillet.

not sitting in the backseat for 20 minutes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 18, 2024, 09:10:28 PM
my ex-wife worked at a Pizza Hut while in college

got some great pizzas and free pitchers of beer outta the tap
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 19, 2024, 08:59:43 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/rxTrMnz.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 20, 2024, 08:09:30 AM
Michigan will be ranked pretty high in national polls and yet that chart suggests they finish either 7-2 or 6-3 in conference play, and they host Texas noncon.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2024, 08:15:08 AM
breaking in a new QB and coach

not sure how much of the O-line and D-line are back

MDot would know
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 20, 2024, 08:18:06 AM
I see Texas is a 3.5 point favorite, which is close to break even of course.  I'm sure if Michigan loses and then is 6-3 in conference play, that 8-4 record will be disappointing for fans given a top ten preseason.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2024, 08:29:35 AM
a Dawg fan would know this well
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on July 20, 2024, 09:31:10 AM
I see Texas is a 3.5 point favorite, which is close to break even of course.  I'm sure if Michigan loses and then is 6-3 in conference play, that 8-4 record will be disappointing for fans given a top ten preseason.
Good hope they're getting warmed to the reality as all of the rats have jumped ship.....for good reason
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: CatsbyAZ on July 20, 2024, 11:36:47 AM
Click bait.  In no legit survey could one put Kyle Field that low.  As a facility it is superior to most nfl stadiums and all of the ones above it here.

Some of that top 12 may have good l or great atmospheres but many are quite dumpy as a facility and need tons of work.

I second this. Texas A&M's stadium should arguably be #1. Could not be more impressed with Kyle Field on my first visit last year.

(https://i.imgur.com/JRZDe65.jpeg)

The Texas Longhorns deserve a ranked spot as well:

(https://i.imgur.com/8gnSnMl.jpeg)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2024, 10:20:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ATlKcbQ.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2024, 09:23:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/fGsj7eL.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2024, 12:04:14 PM
So we asked 14 of our college football writers to rank the best stadiums in the sport. No parameters, no criteria. Writers were asked to submit their top 20 stadiums in order. We then awarded points: 20 for first-place votes, 19 for second and all the way down to 1 point for a stadium voted No. 20.


So, in ranking stadia, no criteria were used.  I don't find that very useful personally, not that it really matters.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 08:35:37 AM
California’s economy grew at a 1.2% annual rate to start 2024, the lowest since 2022’s fourth quarter. This meek GDP expansion ranked No. 29 among the states and the District of Columbia.

Just so you know, the median state GDP growth was only 1.4% as 11 states saw businesses contract. The largest declines were in South Dakota, off at a 4.2% annual rate, and North Dakota and Kansas, off 3.9%.

The top gainer was Idaho at 5%, then Nevada at 4.4%, and Oklahoma at 4.2%. California’s big economic rivals? Rival Texas was 13th-best, up 2.5%. Florida was No. 6, up 3%.



https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2024/07/19/californias-economy-grew-1-2-in-first-quarter-slowest-pace-since-2022/?utm_content=fb-oaklandtribune&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3_-vvQrK-yKwFPPSVA1Lfyl-pmBuujpWKFmNuCNjd79LrUBFYgkkjBlaY_aem_q01LwImReSkUA75Wi_JTMg (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2024/07/19/californias-economy-grew-1-2-in-first-quarter-slowest-pace-since-2022/?utm_content=fb-oaklandtribune&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3_-vvQrK-yKwFPPSVA1Lfyl-pmBuujpWKFmNuCNjd79LrUBFYgkkjBlaY_aem_q01LwImReSkUA75Wi_JTMg)

(https://i.imgur.com/CA1KMPn.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 08:37:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/3sg9hPU.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on July 22, 2024, 09:00:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/3sg9hPU.jpeg)
Only #4...Gonna have to try harder,
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 09:03:53 AM
The reason I'm surprised about Miami is I didn't know they had a fan base (aside from the rare instances when they start out 4-0 or something.)

The others listed have a ton of fans obviously, and so could be viewed as "annoying".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 09:14:21 AM
Miami fans were mostly bandwagon from the 90s when they were winning.

the fan base appreciated the thug/cheating criminal aspect
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 09:14:50 AM
I agree with the list wholeheartedly
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 22, 2024, 09:22:15 AM
I’m curious if anybody ever thinks Miami will be relevant again ?  Their 80’s success appears to be highly tainted. I didn’t follow them in the 90’s much, but they went on another run in the early 00’s, and then it seems like they’ve been pretty irrelevant for the last 20 years. If I’m not mistaken they’ve done nothing in the ACC. 

How successful can a private small college be in this environment? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 09:27:29 AM
With NIL now, it's tough to say, some Nike dude shows up with bags of cash and suddenly you're Oregon.

The landscape in 10 years could be vastly different in terms of which programs are "on top".

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 22, 2024, 09:30:15 AM
With NIL now, it's tough to say, some Nike dude shows up with bags of cash and suddenly you're Oregon.

The landscape in 10 years could be vastly different in terms of which programs are "on top".
Does Miami have good NIL potential?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 22, 2024, 09:30:40 AM
Does Miami have good NIL potential? 
Very strong, yes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 09:34:54 AM
top 20 money and a top 20 coach
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 09:36:21 AM
It doesn't take many with money and interest to generate NIL numbers.  It's going to be a race obviously.  The Dawg posts suggest UGA is "NIL deficient", I have no clue what's true there.  The gist is commits want to play for championships, yadda yadda.

If I'm a 4-5 star and say UNC offers me $500 K a year, I'm going there, figuring to play 3 years and go pro.  If I go to UGA, I might sit a year and play STs and maybe get a bit lost.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 09:41:17 AM
NIL money is going to grow like a sombich the next decade
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 10:25:55 AM
NIL money is going to grow like a sombich the next decade
Yeah my NIL "insider" buddy recently suggested that Texas is currently at maybe 1/10th of where it will be in the next 6-8 years with respect to NIL money.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 10:30:19 AM
well, as fans learn that you can buy players and wins and championships........
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2024, 10:34:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/3sg9hPU.jpeg)
I'd move Ohio State off that list, move Notre Dame up 1, and slot Tennessee in at #3 over Texas, above #5 Michigan.

To me, part of what makes fan bases INCREDIBLY annoying is the sense of superiority and entitlement without the success to back it up. Ohio State ifans aren't cocky; they're confident :57:

Normally I'd always put ND at #1, because they're smug and feel superior despite not having a championship in almost 40 years now. But I can agree with Miami at #1. They came out of nowhere, and returned there, and can't even fill their stadium on a regular basis, but they still think they're hot sh!t. 

Tennessee hasn't had a championship since the 90s, and has barely sniffed anything in 20 years. Texas has a very rich history, but they fell off the map after Mack Brown and have been in nowheresville for a decade and a half now. Michigan would be higher on the list, but they've beaten OSU 3 years running and just cashed their check to stay below the other teams on this list with the NC last season. Probably will immediately fall way behind OSU again now that JEEM is gone tho. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 22, 2024, 10:40:11 AM
Miami is in the very top area for talent in the country.  It's amazing that even that isn't enough w/o the right HC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 22, 2024, 10:42:22 AM
Miami is in the very top area for talent in the country.  It's amazing that even that isn't enough w/o the right HC.
The right head coach makes all the difference to all programs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 10:58:05 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Qwd1iuG.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 22, 2024, 11:39:23 AM
Yeah my NIL "insider" buddy recently suggested that Texas is currently at maybe 1/10th of where it will be in the next 6-8 years with respect to NIL money.
Are there any hard numbers when it comes to NIL today?  I know $30 million was floated around for Texas A&M when we had that recruiting class, which I thought was ridiculous and false. I’ve heard it was closer to $5 million total. I also seem to remember it was supposed to be made public, but the University hasn’t been transparent about it. None of them, not just A&M. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 11:43:20 AM
Are there any hard numbers when it comes to NIL today?  I know $30 million was floated around for Texas A&M when we had that recruiting class, which I thought was ridiculous and false. I’ve heard it was closer to $5 million total. I also seem to remember it was supposed to be made public, but the University hasn’t been transparent about it. None of them, not just A&M.
No they keep it hidden pretty well.  Since it's a private contract between a private company and a private citizen, and the university athletic departments technically aren't supposed to have anything to do with it, then I don't think anyone can be compelled to make the dollar amounts public.  Anything you see is just a guess.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 11:44:10 AM
the money doesn't go through the university
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2024, 11:44:32 AM
Are there any hard numbers when it comes to NIL today?  I know $30 million was floated around for Texas A&M when we had that recruiting class, which I thought was ridiculous and false. I’ve heard it was closer to $5 million total. I also seem to remember it was supposed to be made public, but the University hasn’t been transparent about it. None of them, not just A&M.
Well NIL isn't supposed to be a university expenditure, so I'm not sure how they would bear the responsibility for publicizing the numbers. 

The idea of NIL was to allow athletes to profit from their NIL, i.e. getting spots in commercials, maybe doing ads for local businesses, etc. Profiting from their fame. The idea was that like Olympic athletes, they're not "paid to play", but they're not barred from making money off who they are. This whole "NIL collective" thing was just some bullsh!t end-around to get to pay for play. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 11:46:09 AM
Due to university compliance issues, I'd assume the universities know, and then any compliance officers from the state or NCAA would also be made aware.

But since the contracts themselves are private, they can't publicly disclose those details.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 11:48:34 AM
Well NIL isn't supposed to be a university expenditure, so I'm not sure how they would bear the responsibility for publicizing the numbers.

The idea of NIL was to allow athletes to profit from their NIL, i.e. getting spots in commercials, maybe doing ads for local businesses, etc. Profiting from their fame. The idea was that like Olympic athletes, they're not "paid to play", but they're not barred from making money off who they are. This whole "NIL collective" thing was just some bullsh!t end-around to get to pay for play.

True but ultimately there's no way to avoid it, without it being illegal discrimination against a specific class of citizens.

Legally there never should have been ANY rules against it, as ownership of one's own NIL is a personal right that no government or other organizing body like the NCAA, ever had any authority to abridge.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 11:56:54 AM
I agree it's unavoidable.  It's might be more manageable with a different system more coordinated with the University, but that model would also have flaws.  

My point was about Miami and their chance of recovery.  They are supposed to be pretty good this season.  And with NIL, a program can turn around at least recruiting with some deep pockets interested.  They won't be able necessarily to find the right coaches.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:15:33 PM
Due to university compliance issues, I'd assume the universities know, and then any compliance officers from the state or NCAA would also be made aware.

But since the contracts themselves are private, they can't publicly disclose those details.

I'm not so sure every athlete is going to disclose every bag of money they receive regardless of the wishes of the coaching staff.

especially if there is a question of how that particular bag of money might be perceived by the NCAA or just public opinion 
whether it's a "contract" or a handshake, if it's private, there's no reason to disclose it to the university

"hey, the new QB recruit is driving a new sporty car.  So what, NIL."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 12:18:56 PM
I'm not so sure every athlete is going to disclose every bag of money they receive regardless of the wishes of the coaching staff.

especially if there is a question of how that particular bag of money might be perceived by the NCAA or just public opinion
whether it's a "contract" or a handshake, if it's private, there's no reason to disclose it to the university

"hey, the new QB recruit is driving a new sporty car.  So what, NIL."
If it's true NIL then there's no reason not to disclose it.  And true NIL deals are already beginning to dwarf the old bags of cash, in another few years it won't even be close.

A decade from now there will be no reason to accept under-the-table bags when the legit NIL stuff will be much greater and completely acceptable.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:22:16 PM
unless its a bag of money from a source that the university might not be proud to be a supporter

keep it on the down low

and if it's reported through NIL it's gonna be taxed
nobody likes paying taxes

somethings are just better not reported
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 12:22:48 PM
NIL income is taxable, right?  And expensible on the other end?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 12:26:59 PM
NIL income is taxable, right?  And expensible on the other end?
Yup, it's just standard legal payment for the use of your NIL for all practical purposes.

unless its a bag of money from a source that the university might not be proud to be a supporter

keep it on the down low

and if it's reported through NIL it's gonna be taxed
nobody likes paying taxes

somethings are just better not reported

I think you think there are a lot more of these deals than there actually are, and especially will be, in the future.  It's a pittance compared to the above-the-table money.  So I guess even if it does happen as frequently as you're suggesting, it'll be insignificant as an "inducement" and so why bother discussing it?  

If the concern is that collectives are end-arounding the pay-for-play rules and using NIL as an inducement, then that's a far larger concern than whatever under-the-table stuff is occurring now, or in the future.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:33:06 PM
oh, I agree it's a small percentage

just pointing out that there's NO way of tracking all money going to athletes

on the up and up or otherwise

I'd just track # of highly rated recruits and transfers coming and going

Dylan Raiola said flipping from Georgia to UNL had nothing to do with NIL.
could be true, could be false - 
I'd suppose most players if smart, ...... wouldn't want the public to know how much $$$ they get and from whom.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 12:36:46 PM
If some local car dealer wants to influence a players commitment, he'll do it with NIL.  He can write it off, he gets some advertising benefit, and the player pays the taxes.

Maybe the "bags of cash" are still around because some "drug dealers" can't easily spend their millions otherwise.  They need a car wash.  But then they buy a car wash, pay the player via NIL, and suddenly their business jumps through the roof, a cash business.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 12:38:58 PM
oh, I agree it's a small percentage

just pointing out that there's NO way of tracking all money going to athletes

on the up and up or otherwise

I'd just track # of highly rated recruits and transfers coming and going

Dylan Raiola said flipping from Georgia to UNL had nothing to do with NIL.
could be true, could be false -
I'd suppose most players if smart, ...... wouldn't want the public to know how much $$$ they get and from whom.

Maybe, unless they want to induce bidding.  I'd say it's probably a positive for a recruit, if the perceived amount of NIL he's getting is very high, and even much higher than he's actually getting, to drive up his own price in the market place.

Similarly it's probably good for schools to have a perception of having much higher NIL expenditures than they actually do, in order to drive up the market prices that competing schools are being forced to spend to obtain players when there's a direct recruiting battle at hand. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 12:42:07 PM
The tactic I'd try and use is to keep my high NIL beneficiaries off scholarship, saving those 'ships for additional players who were walkons, but useful to have on the team and on a scholarship, because they aren't getting any NIL.

I know you can only dress so many, but I suspect coaches would like having more players "locked down".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:45:35 PM
Maybe, unless they want to induce bidding.  I'd say it's probably a positive for a recruit, if the perceived amount of NIL he's getting is very high, and even much higher than he's actually getting, to drive up his own price in the market place.

Similarly it's probably good for schools to have a perception of having much higher NIL expenditures than they actually do, in order to drive up the market prices that competing schools are being forced to spend to obtain players when there's a direct recruiting battle at hand.

all this can be done through the agent
doesn't need to be public knowledge - facebook

but, some will do this.  some kids like the spotlight and attention
it's not smart IMO, but that's like just my opinion, man.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2024, 12:48:47 PM
The tactic I'd try and use is to keep my high NIL beneficiaries off scholarship, saving those 'ships for additional players who were walkons, but useful to have on the team and on a scholarship, because they aren't getting any NIL.

I know you can only dress so many, but I suspect coaches would like having more players "locked down".
Yeah, I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this. 

I do worry a bit that there are some big-headed athletes out there who might look at this and think "oh, the NIL folks are going to give me $1.2M/year but the school is too f'ing cheap to give me a scholarship! That's disrespect! I'll go to the other guys." But I'm sure that's only a thing if the other guys are offering $1.2M PLUS the scholarship...

I do think it might trend this way, though. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 12:49:57 PM
I'd rather have $1.2 M a year and no scholarship than $1 M a year and a 'ship.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:52:00 PM
a smart QB might take the 1.2 and instead of thinking it's disrespect, thinks it might help get a walk-on O-lineman or TE or WR that can help him win another game or two
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 22, 2024, 12:54:10 PM
I wouldn't want a dumb QB.  He could go to Nebraska for all I care.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:54:56 PM
well, football smart and book smart are two very different things
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:55:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/B1643qz.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 22, 2024, 12:56:46 PM
I wouldn't want a dumb QB.  He could go to Nebraska for all I care.
The N on the helmet stands for Noledge!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 12:58:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/iHPfjhA.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 22, 2024, 01:08:47 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/iHPfjhA.jpeg)
That's a lot of problems per 100 vehicles...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2024, 01:27:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0ggXbY4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2024, 07:42:47 PM
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10129158-most-interesting-matchups-early-in-2024-college-football-season (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10129158-most-interesting-matchups-early-in-2024-college-football-season)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2024, 08:40:41 AM
So, problems per 100 vehicles ranges from a bit over 1 to around 3.  So, worst case, 3% of the cars have some issue in 90 days?

They are under warranty.  If something is wonky, you take it in and they fix it.  Not great, but it happens rarely.  I'm much more interested in maintenance costs over 100,000 miles.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 24, 2024, 09:24:52 AM
So, problems per 100 vehicles ranges from a bit over 1 to around 3.  So, worst case, 3% of the cars have some issue in 90 days?

They are under warranty.  If something is wonky, you take it in and they fix it.  Not great, but it happens rarely.  I'm much more interested in maintenance costs over 100,000 miles.
Well, one might think there is a correlation between 90-day reliability and 100K mile reliability. And that correlation stems from the same root cause (design & build quality). One may not be able to easily prove this, but it's a reasonable thing to think. 

The problem, of course, is that statistical data on large data sets of cars up to 100K miles is hard to come by, if it's all self-reported survey findings. There's no national objective database that we can all refer to and just look at the data. And there are confounding variables (how well maintained and cared for those cars are generally) that could spoil the data. 

So we're stuck making inferences about future reliability based upon more limited data. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 24, 2024, 09:33:41 AM
mopars suck
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2024, 09:41:56 AM
I personally don't concern myself with these JD Power figures unless some make is WAY off the beam.  If a make has 2 per 100, I don't view that as different from 1 per hundred.  And I THINK long term reliability and low maintenance hinges mostly on other factors.

Our little Hyundai is SO "computerized" I fully expect various widgets to fail along the way.  Whether I have them fixed is another story.

For example, I'm sitting in my office and I can start the dang thing from here, and turn on the AC, and adjust the AC.  I can have it back itself out of a tight parking spot, remotely.  I don't understand how the drive train works, and I've looked for explanations.  It operates seamlessly (for now).  I have to listen hard to hear when the engine cuts on or off.  The small battery it has for oomph may degrade and wear down in time, so I'd lose some acceleration.  Would I replace it then?  Probably not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 24, 2024, 09:48:57 AM
mopars suck
I've now owned 4 MOPAR/Chrysler/Jeep, 2 Chevys, and 3 Fords.  All brands pretty much the same with respect to quality and reliability.  

The 80s models were all worse than the 90s-thru-present models, but across brands the 80s models were the same.

Best by far I've ever owned as far as quality and reliability was the 1992 Honda, worst by far I've ever owned was the 2003 Toyota.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2024, 09:57:03 AM
This is another situation where consumers make choices often confidently based on very small statistical base.  I know Utee doesn't think Toyota is a lousy make, or Honda is great, he likely thinks they both make solid cars.  But some folks with his experience would exclaim that Toyota makes junk, and they only buy Hondas.

Our GTI never had any problems until the 33,000 mile mark when the "dealer" came up with $3 K in maintenance items.  I was pretty miffed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 24, 2024, 10:03:37 AM
What data exists, shows Toyota as being a highly reliable car.  

Given my experience with both their engineering and their dealer network, I find it really hard to believe.  I've never owned a worse, more frustrating piece of shit product, with a worse, more inept and predatory product support team, in ANY consumer product category, not just automobiles, in my entire life.   

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2024, 10:09:21 AM
Interesting.  I've never owned a Toyota.  I did have a Honda that my kid's friend ruined.  Makes I've owned:

Chevy - mostly, two Novas and my ex's Chevette, which was a crap car indeed
Cadillac - 3
Ford - a Pinto very briefly, I sold it for a $50 profit back when
Dodge - minivan
Buick - minivan

Honda CR-V bought well used
VW
Hyundai

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 24, 2024, 10:15:42 AM
I personally don't concern myself with these JD Power figures unless some make is WAY off the beam.  If a make has 2 per 100, I don't view that as different from 1 per hundred.  And I THINK long term reliability and low maintenance hinges mostly on other factors.

Our little Hyundai is SO "computerized" I fully expect various widgets to fail along the way.  Whether I have them fixed is another story.

For example, I'm sitting in my office and I can start the dang thing from here, and turn on the AC, and adjust the AC.  I can have it back itself out of a tight parking spot, remotely.  I don't understand how the drive train works, and I've looked for explanations.  It operates seamlessly (for now).  I have to listen hard to hear when the engine cuts on or off.  The small battery it has for oomph may degrade and wear down in time, so I'd lose some acceleration.  Would I replace it then?  Probably not.
I do think that modern cars have gotten so complex that although many of the mechanical reliability factors are largely better than past vehicles, there is now SO much more that can possibly go wrong. Right now my Flex gives me a notification every time I start it that the blind spot warning system (for lane changes) and the cross traffic warning system (for when you're in reverse) aren't working. I might at some point look into fixing it. Heck, I might jack the car up and see if a connector has come dislodged between the rear bumper where the sensors are located and whatever it's supposed to plug into. It's quite possible that when the bumper was replaced after I got rear-ended, the connector wasn't put together as securely as necessary and wiggled free over time. But it's hardly been something I've worried about.  

That said, I've kind of always looked at cars along these lines:



As you can imagine, I generally assume there's a trade-off between American and Japanese cars whether I pay up front or pay later. And with this bias, I stay the HELL away from Euro. Especially as my goal for any vehicle is to hold it >10 years, so I know that much of what I'll have to deal with is not covered by warranty. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 24, 2024, 10:24:23 AM
My GTI was assembled in Mexico.  A lot of VWs are made in Chattanooga.  Etc. etc.

Where they are designed is clearly a factor along with where parts are made.

I'm still annoyed with that $3 K maintenance charge at 33 K miles, even knowing most of it was bogus.

I sometimes wonder if a "basic car" would sell these days, probably not.  And a lot of crap is mandated anyway.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 24, 2024, 06:32:00 PM
so, does buying an American vehicle keep more of my money in the US?

or does a Toyota assembled in America retain about the same percentage?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 24, 2024, 06:39:00 PM
I hate when a sensor goes bad....but whatever it's supposed to be sensing is perfectly fine.

It's like an invented problem.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 24, 2024, 06:43:23 PM
so, does buying an American vehicle keep more of my money in the US?

or does a Toyota assembled in America retain about the same percentage?
(https://media.tenor.com/4uQxIYJXAdMAAAAM/its-complicated-difficult.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 24, 2024, 09:22:49 PM
damn it, Boy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 24, 2024, 10:12:33 PM
I own several Toyotas. Camry and Tacoma. Both rock solid, 100,000+ miles. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 24, 2024, 11:15:42 PM
better you than me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 25, 2024, 08:17:19 AM
I own 3 Chevys

one over 100,000, one at 99,000, one at 2,000

all rock solid

only maintenance has been oil changes and tires and batteries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 25, 2024, 08:32:54 AM
I loved my Chevys.  My favorite vehicle I've ever owned, from a pure utility standpoint, was the 2005 Tahoe Z71.  I had it for 12 years and 160,000 miles or so.  Only reason I traded it in was because the new RV was too heavy for it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 25, 2024, 08:35:52 AM
Towing miles are probably double or more "regular miles" in terms of engine and transmission wear, I'd guess.  City miles are bad also of course relative to freeway miles.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 25, 2024, 08:37:32 AM
I hate when a sensor goes bad....but whatever it's supposed to be sensing is perfectly fine.

It's like an invented problem. 
A fair number of sensors are related to emissions control equipment, directly or indirectly.  And the car may seem "OK" but actually be down on power and mpg some, depending on the sensor.  Or maybe car makers add frivolous sensors to increase repair bills?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 25, 2024, 11:26:34 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/cd67RQ2.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 25, 2024, 12:08:26 PM
A sort-of ranking: 25 best desserts in the world

https://www.celebritycruises.com/blog/best-desserts-in-the-world
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 25, 2024, 06:52:59 PM
I loved my Chevys.  My favorite vehicle I've ever owned, from a pure utility standpoint, was the 2005 Tahoe Z71.  I had it for 12 years and 160,000 miles or so.  Only reason I traded it in was because the new RV was too heavy for it.
Had an ‘03 Z71 truck. Solid truck. Extended cab, not crew cab. Put 100,000 miles on it, sold in 2012 and bought a crew cab F-150. 

Did you have the dash instrument cluster problem ?  And the multi zone AC issues ?  Seems like they all have those issues. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2024, 11:08:35 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/66EVYcc.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2024, 11:20:18 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bHoNR0V.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 29, 2024, 11:25:44 AM
Had an ‘03 Z71 truck. Solid truck. Extended cab, not crew cab. Put 100,000 miles on it, sold in 2012 and bought a crew cab F-150.

Did you have the dash instrument cluster problem ?  And the multi zone AC issues ?  Seems like they all have those issues.
Hmmm, I don't recall either of those issues with the Tahoe.

The transmission on the '95 Blazer I had before that, went out at 120K miles.  But I'd been using it for towing my boat and unlike the Tahoe, it did NOT have a separate transmission cooler.  When I had it rebuilt, I added one, and no more problems with that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2024, 09:38:44 PM
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40648172/ncaa-football-top-25-players-21st-century-tim-tebow-reggie-bush-cam-newton-more (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40648172/ncaa-football-top-25-players-21st-century-tim-tebow-reggie-bush-cam-newton-more)

(https://i.imgur.com/SFc0tLk.jpeg)










1. DT Ndamukong Suh, Nebraska
Key accomplishments: 2009 Lombardi Award, 2009 Outland Award, 2009 Bronko Nagurski Trophy, 2009 AP college football player of the year, 2009 Heisman finalist; 49.5 career tackles for loss, 24 career sacks, 4 interceptions, 2 touchdowns.

A four-star prospect from Oregon, Suh enjoyed three good years before posting one of the most devastating individual seasons in college football history. Suh was unblockable in 2009. Despite triple-teams, countless holding penalties (called and uncalled) and entire game plans designed to avoid the middle of the field, he made 20.5 TFLs with 12 sacks. His performance in the Big 12 championship game against Texas -- seven TFLs, 4.5 sacks -- was among the best ever. I realize we don't give Heismans to defensive players, but it's still utterly inexcusable that he didn't win the Heisman that year. Best player of the 2000s and one of the best of all time.

• 'He tackled him too hard': Inside Ndamukong Suh's legendary 2009 season




Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 29, 2024, 09:51:43 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dTgSfig.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 29, 2024, 10:25:51 PM
All 3 of Tebow's passing seasons were better than Young's best, plus he had 20 more rushing TDs.

But you know, the Rose Bowl....ffs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 29, 2024, 10:29:17 PM
If the XIICG stats are included in his season stats, then Suh is overrated.  13.5 TFL and 7.5 sacks is unremarkable, sorry.
.
UPDATE
Khalil Mack is 13th.  Bill Connolly is officially unable to detach college and pro.  Sigh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 30, 2024, 08:23:05 AM
it's easy to see the NFL bias

well, except for Vince Young
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 08:25:02 AM
Vince Young was magical to watch and people remember that.  

Oh noes, someone made a ranking I don't like!  Time to cry about it!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 30, 2024, 08:26:41 AM
that's why this thread is here
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 30, 2024, 08:29:04 AM
stats obviously don't tell the whole story

Khalil Mack played in the Mid-American Conference - high school defense
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 30, 2024, 01:19:00 PM
Worst states to retire in the U.S.—No. 1 isn’t California or New York (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/30/worst-states-to-retire-in-the-us.html)


[th]1.[/th]


Alaska6.Massachusetts
[th]2.[/th]


New York7.Colorado
[th]3.[/th]


Washington8.Maryland
[th]4.[/th]


California9.Texas
[th]5.[/th]


N Dakota10.Minnesota





Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 02:05:29 PM
They're right, Texas is terrible, don't move here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 02:07:58 PM
Ranking of the most expensive tickets to get this coming college football season:

(https://i.imgur.com/QDOoclG.png)

https://twitter.com/BlakeMunroeOTF/status/1818294963681005836?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1818294963681005836%7Ctwgr%5E536b3ccbaed5e29b1f2700735f5c5a118442fae3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fblakemunroeotf%2Fstatus%2F1818294963681005836%3Fs%3D46
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 30, 2024, 02:57:41 PM
Cincy at Colorado????

what Cincy fans are traveling in droves to Boulder?

I'd think that Colorado in Lincoln would be tougher
maybe I will hit a scalper for a paper ticket out front 15 minutes before KO
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 03:58:39 PM
12 best burgers in the USA according to... someone.

https://www.theinfatuation.com/all/guides/best-burgers-america?utm_campaign=cm&utm_medium=paid_social&utm_site_source_name=fb&utm_audience=nat&fbclid=IwY2xjawEWJJ9leHRuA2FlbQEwAAEdDG55pCuXFNfC4BM8s8FsAOvo5D4JeRTqYTkzDnsaoO-jP398BT9dCTyk_aem_Nkdo_AOXLShGAH0mD-vWrg

I've had two and they were both quite tasty.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 30, 2024, 04:01:37 PM
Zero of twelve for me. 

I suppose I could drive up to Venice and give that one a shot, but, that's like, FAR, man...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 04:16:43 PM
Next time you're in Austin you'll have to try Leroy and Lewis.  It's excellent all the way around.  Fantastic brisket, that delicious smoked brisket burger they mention, and their beef cheek is out of this world.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 30, 2024, 04:51:17 PM
Next time you're in Austin you'll have to try Leroy and Lewis.  It's excellent all the way around.  Fantastic brisket, that delicious smoked brisket burger they mention, and their beef cheek is out of this world.
As mentioned, assuming my engineering-leaning son still has interest in UT (and I can't think why he wouldn't) we'll hit you up when we need to bring him into town to see the campus. 

I'm sure you'll do a better job selling him on why UT is the right school than the dude at the Kenny Chesney concert who had nothing other to say than "football" :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 30, 2024, 05:04:26 PM
0/12, but the best one is Nancy Burger in Houston.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 30, 2024, 05:19:07 PM
I never heard of LFA in Dunwoody, I might get up there some time, the photo looks decent.  They made this local list as well.

The Top 14 Best Burger Spots In Atlanta (atlantanmagazine.com) (https://atlantanmagazine.com/best-burgers-atlanta)

On this list, I've had burgers at Farm Burger, Vortex, and Grindhouse.  They are all similar, I might give an edge to Vortex, but we like the atmosphere at Farm Burger.  They do burger and a beer for $11.

So, one thing such lists are good for is listing some place I never heard of and maybe I try it out.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 30, 2024, 10:16:13 PM
Vince Young was magical to watch and people remember that. 

Oh noes, someone made a ranking I don't like!  Time to cry about it!
So only post if I agree, got it.  

Don't be an idiot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 30, 2024, 11:09:05 PM
So only post if I agree, got it. 

Don't be an idiot.
Who said that?

You can post all you like, and you can sound like a whiner as you do it.

Don't be a Dolt.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 01:09:02 AM
It's not whining when it's supported with facts. 
This thread exists because rankings are very subjective, but even within that subjection, absurdities can be pointed out.
For instance, the 21st century best players list has Cam Newton 3rd, which means it values peak, as all Newton had was 1 year.  But it ranks Burrow 9th somehow.  That's inconsistent.  It's almost as if had Burrow not played in 2018, he'd be ranked higher.  That's sort of absurd, no?

And somehow, many people seem to deem VY's 1-game vs USC > a career's worth of Jesus walking on water

No, I don't understand it.  It's like Roger Staubach all over again.  I mean fuck, if VY was SO good, why didn't he DO more?  His best attribute was scrambling.  Ouch.  VY was closer to Pat White than he was to the other QBs on the list.
But the Rose Bowl.....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 01:18:27 AM
It's obviously not just about Young/Tebow.  Jonathan Taylor 25th.  The only RB in 40 years to eclipse the 3-year career of Herschel Walker....and he's 25th.  

It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 31, 2024, 07:30:58 AM
stats
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 31, 2024, 07:35:18 AM
I've had the juicy Lucy at Matt's after a Viking/Lions game while watching the Bears on Matt's TV

it's good, but not in my top 12
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 31, 2024, 07:48:37 AM
The Best Classic Restaurants in Every State

This year, we're renewing our vows with America's finest old-school institutions.

https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/best-classic-restaurants-every-state?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-share-article&fbclid=IwY2xjawEXA0VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQ_VsxTaYRL9zXpuAtvXgk9vDsFZlZgYuuqsRF2aidX_1rgwJQMOHCOrDA_aem_5l0M3kQZAMluDBiQkOl1jQ (https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/restaurants/best-classic-restaurants-every-state?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-share-article&fbclid=IwY2xjawEXA0VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQ_VsxTaYRL9zXpuAtvXgk9vDsFZlZgYuuqsRF2aidX_1rgwJQMOHCOrDA_aem_5l0M3kQZAMluDBiQkOl1jQ)

IOWA

Were it not for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Archie Jackson (not his birth name) might never have fled Russia, never have gone to work in the packing houses of the Midwest, and never have ended up in little Le Mars, way up in the northwest corner of the state, even past Sioux City, where Archie's Waeside was born in 1949. It would eventually become one of the country's most decorated steakhouses — a turn of events that would have had to surprise even the restaurant's most ardent followers. Come here today and you'll find the restaurant still in the same family, and you'll find gigantic, dry-aged steaks, well-prepared classic cocktails, relish trays, and personable service — how Archie's became famous, and why the place remains in business today is no secret.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 31, 2024, 08:14:36 AM
I think we all understand that MOST such lists are click bait, irrelevant opinions really, some of them are design to get people to react because they are dumb, or at least have some aspects that are, um, debateable.

Some are useful, like lists of top ten burgers, if there is one near you maybe you file that away and try it some time.  Great.

I'm not going to be upset if some list of all time greatest CFb players 1-50 leaves out Walker, I understand the game.  I'm not going to "whine" or remark except perhaps a brief chuckle, if that.  If some other list has him first, I'm not going to chortle, it's still someone's opinion.  I've come to prefer just have some idea who the greats were historically and not try and rank the unrankable (unless its based purely on stats, and then it's still just stats, which can "lie").

That quote is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by the way, not Mark Twain.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 31, 2024, 08:36:10 AM
The Best Classic Restaurants in Every State

This year, we're renewing our vows with America's finest old-school institutions.


It's a decent attempt in my opinion...  y'all know my opinion of Archie's waeside

I've also been to Murray's and Kramarczuk's in Minnesooota

I haven't been to Gorat's Steakhouse, in Omaha but I've heard by many that it's a bit over rated because of Warren Buffett

Minerva's in Sioux Falls is solid
I'll try the others on the list if the opportunity presents itself 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 31, 2024, 08:43:08 AM
One reestaurant ranking that I'd like would be "Overlook undervalued places to dine".  That said, I've mentioned Bacchanalia here before, it is quite a good experience, I think they are up to $120 per now, without wine.

This one is funny:

Charming though it may be, with the quirky landscaping, that flying pig sculpture, and the collection of hub caps doubling as wall art, you would not walk past, let alone into, Crooks Corner in Chapel Hill thinking you were in the presence of Southern restaurant royalty. But this cheerful 1980s café started something big, when it got notions in its head about taking something humble like Lowcountry shrimp and grits, something area fishermen typically ate for breakfast, and giving it the casual gourmet treatment. The dish, featuring mushrooms, scallions, and plenty of bacon, is as good as ever.

When I was there, this was a pretty typical BBQ place, kind of hole in the wallish.  I took my wife there more recently when we went back and it was decidly upscale, and pretty good, not great, but surprised me. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 31, 2024, 08:45:04 AM
For Ohio:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)].[/color] To go even further back in the 19th century (1803, to be precise), head to Lebanon, where The Golden Lamb has hosted at least a dozen presidents during its long lifetime. You could get fancy, or you could give into the half-fried chicken dinner, like so many others do (it's good).

For quite some time, Cincinnati was the last word in fine dining in this part of the world, but for longevity, you can't beat the regional chili parlor culture, which remains vast, varied, and rather overwhelming to the uninitiated. Go extremely local for your first stop, somewhere they'll treat you nice, like Price Hill Chili, a neighborhood gathering place that's far off the beaten path. Sit at the counter to watch the kitchen crew tossing piles of shredded cheddar around like so much orange confetti.

The Golden Lamb once was solid, I agree, but I took my wife there ca. 2012 and it was just "OK", seemed to be resting in a laurel bush.


Never dined at Price Hill Chili, I imagine it's "typical".  Not fine dining at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 08:56:56 AM
I think we all understand that MOST such lists are click bait, irrelevant opinions really, some of them are design to get people to react because they are dumb, or at least have some aspects that are, um, debateable.

Okay, so post it, but don't comment on it.  Except when it's a food thing, then go on for pages and pages about it.

I'm just trying to figure out the rules here.  Apparently I'm doing it all wrong.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on July 31, 2024, 09:10:57 AM
For Texas I've heard of the Perini Ranch Steakhouse outside of Abilene, but I've never been.  Sounds interesting, I'll put it on the list for next time I'm headed that way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 31, 2024, 09:35:42 AM
Okay, so post it, but don't comment on it.  Except when it's a food thing, then go on for pages and pages about it.

I'm just trying to figure out the rules here.  Apparently I'm doing it all wrong.
You have to be the most self aggrieved insecure poster here.  You take everything personally, and as an attack on you.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 31, 2024, 10:15:41 AM
It's not whining when it's supported with facts. 
This thread exists because rankings are very subjective, but even within that subjection, absurdities can be pointed out.
For instance, the 21st century best players list has Cam Newton 3rd, which means it values peak, as all Newton had was 1 year.  But it ranks Burrow 9th somehow.  That's inconsistent.  It's almost as if had Burrow not played in 2018, he'd be ranked higher.  That's sort of absurd, no?

And somehow, many people seem to deem VY's 1-game vs USC > a career's worth of Jesus walking on water

No, I don't understand it.  It's like Roger Staubach all over again.  I mean fuck, if VY was SO good, why didn't he DO more?  His best attribute was scrambling.  Ouch.  VY was closer to Pat White than he was to the other QBs on the list.
But the Rose Bowl.....
Geez, you do really get your panties in a bunch easily over nothing don't you?  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on July 31, 2024, 01:34:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/hbwTuaa.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on July 31, 2024, 03:11:56 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/hbwTuaa.png)
I don't follow the NFL that much, but I take this is sarcasm?  What's the issue with onside kicks? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on July 31, 2024, 03:15:26 PM
I don't follow the NFL that much, but I take this is sarcasm?  What's the issue with onside kicks?
They are changing kickoff rules next season, will look a lot different
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on July 31, 2024, 06:05:15 PM
just get rid of kickoffs then
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 10:00:16 PM
Geez, you do really get your panties in a bunch easily over nothing don't you? 


Posting about football talk on a football board is getting my panties in a bunch?

This place is losing it.  

Bitch all day about Biden, Harris, food, guns, or whatever the fuck, cool.  Disagree with a football thing - PSYCHO!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 10:01:36 PM
You have to be the most self aggrieved insecure poster here.  You take everything personally, and as an attack on you. 
Perhaps because I'm so often attacked, lol.  
You wouldn't understand.  You enjoy old-man apathy at your age.  Enjoy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 10:03:02 PM
I don't follow the NFL that much, but I take this is sarcasm?  What's the issue with onside kicks?
Because the first wave of the kicking team no longer goes for the ball, but instead are tasked with utterly destroying the returning team's players trying to field the ball.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on July 31, 2024, 10:17:05 PM
https://twitter.com/KFordRatings/status/1817242466447466560?t=D-8lQbaUXiiIVpjxtts_1w&s=19
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 31, 2024, 10:34:05 PM
So are mulligans good for the sanctity of the regular season or bad?  Hmm, tough one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on July 31, 2024, 10:39:37 PM
https://twitter.com/KFordRatings/status/1817242466447466560?t=D-8lQbaUXiiIVpjxtts_1w&s=19
https://twitter.com/KFordRatings/status/1817721600353153112?t=Iuoc2qdNskTbN9JH5cFuVA&s=19
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 01, 2024, 12:52:26 AM
This is a wrinkle though.  A team like Iowa who (by this system) is favored in 11 games.  But so many are narrow margins, they are projected to win 7.6 games.  But this metric doesnt really.account for that
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 01, 2024, 03:59:58 AM
This is a wrinkle though.  A team like Iowa who (by this system) is favored in 11 games.  But so many are narrow margins, they are projected to win 7.6 games.  But this metric doesnt really.account for that
As how thorough their explanation is for this, they'd have zero faith in the masses understanding your point, lol.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 01, 2024, 08:19:37 AM
They are changing kickoff rules next season, will look a lot different
So are these the actual rules?  Because my first thought was sarcasm. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on August 01, 2024, 08:24:28 AM
So are these the actual rules?  Because my first thought was sarcasm.
Yes, the new kickoff rules change where the kicking team lines up. I think now they line up on the opposing team's 40. Necessitated changes in the onsides kick rules, as they will have to line up like normal to do one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 01, 2024, 08:32:14 AM
redickerous
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 01, 2024, 09:46:57 AM
Posting about football talk on a football board is getting my panties in a bunch?

This place is losing it. 

Bitch all day about Biden, Harris, food, guns, or whatever the fuck, cool.  Disagree with a football thing - PSYCHO!
Well, since I'm not speaking to you in person and I only have so much context from what is written in your responses you seem to be very animated about this list. 

I notice they left out Johnny Manziel from the list, but I couldn't care less.  It's supposed to elicit rage. Somebody else might write a list that puts Manziel at #1, which I wouldn't agree with either.  I found it hilarious that they listed Kyler Murray and put him under OU/A&M.  

Suh at #1?  Very questionable.  Great player, no doubt.  I had never even heard of several players on the list.  I don't even really remember much about Ed Reed in college, hell we're practically the same age (40's).  I think some of the choices are spot on, not everything is about pure stats.  VY was definitely a great player.  Cam, Tebow, all great.  
Why not just respond with your Top 20 list.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 01, 2024, 09:47:35 AM
Oh, and I definitely think they did everybody a disservice by leaving out Colt McCoy.  That was a helluva great CFB player.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 01, 2024, 10:16:56 AM
Simms was better
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 01, 2024, 10:28:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/YcofGhm.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2024, 10:50:59 AM
Simms was better
Wrong QB controversy bub.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 01, 2024, 11:12:32 AM
point still stands
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2024, 11:18:12 AM
I liked Simms just fine.  Glad he spent his college years here.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 12:17:56 PM
Kind of arbitrary, to me, at 200 m, but whatever.  Miami and Dallas have impressive looking skylines, so does Seattle and SF.  I'm thinking this is incorrect.

(https://i.imgur.com/9UsgYKx.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 01, 2024, 01:33:00 PM
Really surprised to see Houston so high on that list.  Never seen NYC or Chicago.  They must be really impressive.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 01, 2024, 01:35:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/s5Co2RB.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 01:40:42 PM
Atlanta does have ten, soon to be 11, but the shortest 4 or so are barely over 200 m.

Mapping Atlanta's 10 tallest towers, from downtown to Buckhead (curbed.com) (https://atlanta.curbed.com/maps/atlanta-tallest-buildings-high-rises-map-pictures)

One of them us up in Buckhead.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2024, 02:03:50 PM
Really surprised to see Houston so high on that list.  Never seen NYC or Chicago.  They must be really impressive. 
They are.

Great cities to visit, would never live in either one.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 02:17:07 PM
NYC is far and away the most impressive.  For one thing, you have the density hemmed in by two rivers.  Then you have granite bedrock.  And land started being very expensive a hundred years ago.  So many of their very tall buildings are many decades old.

The land here is relatively cheap, still, we have a fair number of surface parking lots around midtown today, some owned by speculators.  Up until recently, new construction was in the 30-40 story range because of that, but a new 60 is going up now.  That will be the tallest built here in 30+ years, and fifth tallest overall.

If erected in Manhattan, one would not even notice it.

(5) 1072 West Peachtree UC | SkyscraperCity Forum (https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/1072-west-peachtree-uc.2418616/#replies)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 01, 2024, 02:26:30 PM
NYC is far and away the most impressive.  For one thing, you have the density hemmed in by two rivers.  Then you have granite bedrock.  And land started being very expensive a hundred years ago.  So many of their very tall buildings are many decades old.

The land here is relatively cheap, still, we have a fair number of surface parking lots around midtown today, some owned by speculators.  Up until recently, new construction was in the 30-40 story range because of that, but a new 60 is going up now.  That will be the tallest built here in 30+ years, and fifth tallest overall.

If erected in Manhattan, one would not even notice it.

(5) 1072 West Peachtree UC | SkyscraperCity Forum (https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/1072-west-peachtree-uc.2418616/#replies)
That and the huge park in the middle of it all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 01, 2024, 02:30:27 PM
That and the huge park in the middle of it all.
Central Park took some huge foresight, a long time ago.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 01, 2024, 02:33:53 PM
Central Park took some huge foresight, a long time ago. 
Yes, it did.

Chicago got even more foresight, learning from some of the mistakes made in NY. The alley concept was a great idea. 

Daniel Burnham's "Plan of Chicago" is pretty cool.

Burnham Plan of Chicago - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on August 01, 2024, 02:36:49 PM
Really surprised to see Houston so high on that list.  Never seen NYC or Chicago.  They must be really impressive. 
I wonder if they’re less concentrated in Houston.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 02:37:45 PM
Central Park is a thousand acres, amidst Manhattan, and indeed is amazing.  

The park here is 200 acres, and also, to me, amazing.  It's a huge part of what makes this area desirable, just as Central Park works in Manhattan.

They have smaller parks dotted around.  The potential money taken up by parks I think pays out manifold in property values around said park.

Waterfront parks are also super nice.  I thought Cincinnati really blew a chance back in the day when they put two stadiums on the waterfront when there was room further inland, not the river front there is .... not what I like.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 01, 2024, 02:41:24 PM
Downtown Austin has two adjacent parks right along the river that together are about 400 acres.  That's where they hold the ACL Fest every year, among many other events.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 01, 2024, 06:04:57 PM
Kind of arbitrary, to me, at 200 m, but whatever.  Miami and Dallas have impressive looking skylines, so does Seattle and SF.  I'm thinking this is incorrect.

(https://i.imgur.com/9UsgYKx.jpeg)
Oklahoma City going for "quality" over quantity soon
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 06:10:46 PM
Downtown Austin has two adjacent parks right along the river that together are about 400 acres.  That's where they hold the ACL Fest every year, among many other events.

Vancouver did a nice job as well.  They have a lot of water front and parks nearly all the way around, plus one large park on an isthmus.   A water feature should not be wasted on commercial stuff in my view.  We don't have one here, except the Chattahoochie which is north of the city, and substantially preserved fortunately.

Savannah has their tourist district right on the water front which works pretty well for them, it's not a park, but it's pretty open at least.  I was disappointed in Chattanooga.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 01, 2024, 06:21:43 PM
1. New York, NY
The epicenter of all things, according to many, this extraordinary city has a GDP of $1.87 trillion and a population of 8,930,002 (we’re excited for those last two citizens). The skyline is epic and continues growing, with old favorites like the [color=var(--timeOut)]Empire State Building (https://www.timeout.com/newyork/attractions/empire-state-building-manhattan-ny)[/url] and a [color=var(--timeOut)]new one[/color] (https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/this-new-skyscraper-will-completely-change-the-manhattan-skyline-041824) planned on Fifth Avenue.[/font][/size][/color]
2. Los Angeles, CA
This beloved film industry town has a GDP of $1.1 trillion and a population of 3,919,973. Its outcropping of skyscrapers is beautiful against the backdrop of the Hollywood hills and the iconic Hollywood sign, seen from various vantage points.
3. Chicago, IL
The John Hancock Center and Sears Tower (now called the Willis Tower) thrill visitors to this midwestern city with a GDP of $715 billion and a population of 2,756,546.
4. San Francisco, CA
With a GDP of $594 million and a population of 887,711, the city by the bay gleams with old favorites like the Coit Tower and newer ones like the Salesforce building.
5. Washington, D.C.
Our nation’s capital has many iconic buildings in its skyline, like the Washington Monument obelisk and, of course, the capitol itself. It has a GDP of $579 billion and a population of 707,109.
6. Dallas, TX
This city’s playful skyline includes the sphere-topped Reunion Tower, which glows at night like a neon dandelion. Dallas’s GDP is $524 billion and its population is 1,325,691.
7. Houston, TX
Houston, another city in Texas with a great skyline, catches some great sunrises and sunsets in its glass windows. It has a GDP of $489 billion and a population of 2,345,606.
 8. Philadelphia, PA
Enjoy old-world Pennsylvania with clock-festooned towers and Art Deco skyscrapers, as well as more modern buildings. Philly has a GDP of $457 billion and a population of 1,619,355.
9. Seattle, WA
With an instantly recognizable skyline thanks to its fabulous Space Needle, Seattle has a GDP of $444 billion and a population of 762,687.
10. [color=var(--timeOut)]Atlanta (https://www.timeout.com/usa/news/move-over-lax-and-jfk-atlanta-is-the-busiest-airport-in-the-world-041922)[/url], GA[/font][/b][/font][/size][/color]
Atlanta’s beautiful skyline seems to organically rise in height until you reach the tallest buildings at the center—the city’s been used in many film productions to show what a quintessential American city looks like. It has a GDP of $432 billion and a population of 514,457. 


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 01, 2024, 09:47:05 PM
hah. less than 2 square miles??

1280 acres

city folks have no idea
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 02, 2024, 02:12:07 PM
10 of the Biggest Car Tech Innovations Of the Past 75 Years (motortrend.com) (https://www.motortrend.com/features/biggest-car-technology-advancements-since-1949/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_type=organic&fbclid=IwY2xjawEaAJBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSTD08z-K9kS2sR4JLe2T4RgghbK-dAlYCm_uCBnGjmgmTbyFHhBpIT5NQ_aem_57TlluIZ3hLZ5u3AT-Pt0A)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 02, 2024, 02:16:59 PM
For me, I'd opine universal use of electronic fuel injection has been the biggest innovation in however long.  If we still had carbs, well, it wouldn't be pretty.

Some smaller items not mentioned is automatic choke and heaters (and full HVAC).  Heaters were optioned back in the '60s on many smaller cars.  Our Cessnas had no auto choke, you also had to prime the engines and then get the fuel mixture set properly and then check magnetos.  It was a bit of a chore just to start up the dang things.

The starter motors were back before the 75 year time frame.  Cadillac I believe  pioneered them, Leland?

Now you just push a button and the engine starts up by itself.  Remember to engage the clutch.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 02, 2024, 03:40:19 PM
NYC is far and away the most impressive.  For one thing, you have the density hemmed in by two rivers.  Then you have granite bedrock.  And land started being very expensive a hundred years ago.  So many of their very tall buildings are many decades old.

The land here is relatively cheap, still, we have a fair number of surface parking lots around midtown today, some owned by speculators.  Up until recently, new construction was in the 30-40 story range because of that, but a new 60 is going up now.  That will be the tallest built here in 30+ years, and fifth tallest overall.

If erected in Manhattan, one would not even notice it.

(5) 1072 West Peachtree UC | SkyscraperCity Forum (https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/1072-west-peachtree-uc.2418616/#replies)
1931 view 



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 02, 2024, 03:57:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8FcOX36.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 02, 2024, 09:28:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/wS24Exe.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 03, 2024, 08:18:26 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/uZfSMKe.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: CatsbyAZ on August 04, 2024, 10:21:00 AM
Professional Sports stadium rankings for the three major leagues based on aggregating reviews across Yelp, Google, Trip Advisor, & Facebook:

I’ve watched events in 7 of the Top 10, 11 of the Top 20, the 3 worst, and 21 overall.

#89 Oakland should probably be dead last. Visited twice and it's well past functionality and looks terrible.

Only #90 Commanders Field (formerly Fedex Field) is rated worse. It’s not as bad as the Oakland Coliseum but it’s inconveniently located and hasn’t been maintained (thanks Snyder).

Surprised #88 Allegiant Stadium (Raiders) rates so low. I’ve done two football games here, will do a third next month, and find it more than fine, a newer version of #48 State Farm Stadium (Arizona Cardinals). Edit: I imagine the same can be said for #85 Sofi Stadium (Rams, Chargers).

As for #7 Fenway and #8 Wrigley rating in the Top 10, as storied as these settings are, their age really shows with restrooms and concessions very outdated and the walkways cramped. I’m thinking all the positive reviews go back to the unique pilgrimage experience these stadiums provide.

No problem with Lambeau, PNC Park, and Camden Yards ranked at the top – those are fantastic facilities.

(https://i.imgur.com/4kZJKdN.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 04, 2024, 10:28:03 AM
The ones I've visited, not many, are just different, none of somehow better than any other.  I'm impressed how few are not "named" for some brand.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 05, 2024, 12:36:23 PM
College football rankings: Coaches Poll Top 25 released for 2024 season (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-coaches-poll-top-25-released-for-2024-season-234461320/#2458307)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 05, 2024, 10:18:26 PM
Washington unranked.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 05, 2024, 10:33:48 PM
Five "Big 8" schools ranked, including both Kansases, but neither Nebraska nor Colorado. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on August 06, 2024, 10:29:16 AM
I think A&M is perennially 19-21 on this list.  

Texas at #4 seems about right.  Should be a fun year.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 07, 2024, 08:31:54 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/vuXksZJ.png)

Some of those countries have some pretty serious and ugly poverty in areas.  Anyway, I disagree, but whatever.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 07, 2024, 09:09:16 AM
The Cave DSM, a local wine shop and bar, was recently voted as one of the best wine shops in the country.

Not only can you stop at The Cave DSM for a drink, you can also purchase a wine for your at-home collection since the shop offers a "hybrid" retail/bar model.

Ten wine shops were selected by an expert panel and voted by readers to determine which ranked the best. The Cave DSM scored eighth place, beating out a wine cellar and a wine grocery store both based in California.

Making the USA TODAY 10Best list came as a bit of a surprise, but it goes to show just how far of a reach The Cave DSM's has, said co-owner Nick Leo.


"In one way it was kind of surprising because there were some seriously established places on that list, but at the same time, we have been fortunate to have other national publications reach out to us," Leo said.

The Cave DSM has also been featured in publications including Wine Enthusiast and the online bar publication PUNCH.

So here is what you should know about the nationally ranked Des Moines-based wine shop and bar.


The Cave DSM is the only wine shop that focuses completely on offering a wide selection of natural wines. All the wines are organically farmed and naturally fermented as opposed to being sterilized and pasteurized. There are also no additives. The natural wine is sourced on a smaller scale by small production wineries around the world.

"Because everything is small production, there are constantly new things coming in and out," Leo said.

The wine on The Cave DSM's shelves comes from Australia, Germany, Lebanon, Spain, France, Palestine and more. Wines from the U.S. are typically from California and Oregon, but they also offer a cider from Wisconsin.

What is The Cave DSM's Wine Club?
The Cave DSM also offers a monthly subscription to the Wine Club. Anyone who enrolls will pay around $50 to $75 a month to get two wines specially chosen by The Cave DSM. The subscription also provides a pamphlet with background on the wine and paring suggestions. The pick-up day for the Wine Club is the second Saturday of each month.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 07, 2024, 09:39:20 AM
My personal view of these "organic" or "natural" wines is that the premise is completely bogus, but whatever.  I'm sure the wine shop is a nice one.

We had one in Cincy I frequented, too often, a wine shop with the bar next door.  You could buy a bottle in the shop if the bar didn't feature something you liked.

Great patio, it's still operating, in Glendale, Ohio.

There is a "hybrid" down this way we liked, but it's a ways away and we have been back, called "Seed".  There is a very nice wine bar with a nice restaurant attached.

Seed Kitchen and Bar | American Restaurant in Marietta, GA (eatatseed.com) (https://www.eatatseed.com/)

We have several beer places near us, but the only wine bar is two miles and too large for my tastes.  There is a "Pour" beer place close by, it's only OK.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 08, 2024, 03:28:48 PM
10 Worst States in America for Property Taxes (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/10-worst-states-in-america-for-property-taxes/ss-AA1lUc2I?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=72c1b1006efc4d4583b3b532d0944155&ei=34)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 08, 2024, 03:36:15 PM
LINCOLN, Neb. (WOWT) - A week before the Legislature is expected to reconvene for a special session, Gov. Jim Pillen held a news conference on his push to reduce Nebraska property taxes by 50%.

The announcement comes after the governor has been holding town halls around the state in recent weeks promoting his plan. According to a release from Pillen’s office, he has also been having regular meetings with senators focused on the issue.

“In Nebraska, property tax collections have accelerated at a rapid rate. In a few short years, they will reach more than $1 million a day, or $6 billion a year,” the release states. “Nebraska is among states for highest property taxes in the nation and the governor has made tax reform a central goal of his administration.”

Pillen initially charged the Unicameral with coming up with a 40% reduction in property taxes. But the bill put forward failed in the spring session. The governor clarified that he’s now looking for 50% — with some getting back 65% or 70%.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 08, 2024, 04:06:05 PM
10 Worst States in America for Property Taxes (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/10-worst-states-in-america-for-property-taxes/ss-AA1lUc2I?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=72c1b1006efc4d4583b3b532d0944155&ei=34)
One of the few taxation lists where CA isn't top ten (or from the standpoint of taxpayers, BOTTOM ten)... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 08, 2024, 04:42:40 PM
HATCH CHILE season is here!! We have hatch chile and cheddar brats and burgers!

(https://i.imgur.com/LbIgDwL.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 09, 2024, 11:39:48 AM
I'm still seeing "social media" angst about the preseason polls.  I guess it's something to do.  I THINK maybe "back in the day" when I was say 14 I probably mulled over preseason polls and thought MY TEAM was getting disrespected.  Maybe I would think that even at my age except ...

Huh.  I can't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 09, 2024, 11:47:51 AM
HATCH CHILE season is here!! We have hatch chile and cheddar brats and burgers!

[img width=500 height=328.996]https://i.imgur.com/LbIgDwL.jpeg[/img]

Every year when it's fresh green chile season, my dad roasts a bunch of them, and then makes chile rellenos out of them.  Unlike most Tex-Mex and Mexican chile rellenos that are made from poblano and battered in egg/flour, my dads are the traditional West Texas/Nex Mexican style, so they're made from New Mexican green chile (Hatch is the most recognized region but not the only one), and they're battered in cornmeal and stuffed with whatever you like.  

This year our family's Chile Relleno Fest is Sunday night and dad's stuffing them with traditional picadillo filling, and Oaxaca cheese.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 09, 2024, 11:49:55 AM
wish I could make it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 09, 2024, 11:53:24 AM
College football Freaks List 2024: Why Nyck Harbor takes No. 1 spot (again) in Bruce Feldman’s rankings


The Freaks List started in the summer of 2005 with a linebacker in the MAC named Terna Nande. The weight room stories his strength coach (now with the Denver Broncos) told me blew my mind — so much so that I ranked Nande from Miami (Ohio) above Vernon Davis, Calvin Johnson and a bunch of other players primed for big-time NFL careers. Twenty years later, the list — the thing I’m probably most known for in football circles — has only grown.


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5668892/2024/08/06/college-football-freaks-list-2024-bruce-feldman/?source=freedailyemail&campaign=601983 (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5668892/2024/08/06/college-football-freaks-list-2024-bruce-feldman/?source=freedailyemail&campaign=601983)

57. Tommi Hill, Nebraska, cornerback
As he showed at both Temple and Baylor, Matt Rhule has a good eye for freaks. In the 6-foot, 205-pound Hill, he inherited a very gifted prospect.

“He’s a 42-inch vertical, 4.3 (40) guy,” Rhule said. Hill started one game on offense and seven more on defense before he moved to cornerback full-time in 2023. Hill made 26 tackles and had nine PBUs with four interceptions. Another DB to remember at Nebraska is redshirt freshman Jeremiah Charles, a 5-11, 170-pounder who has broad-jumped 11 feet and finished fifth in the triple jump (50-6 3/4) and sixth in the long jump (24-0 1/4) at the Big Ten Indoor Championships this year.

“He scored (points) in the Big Ten in a track meet and then came back and won the (football team’s) dunk contest the day they got back,” said Rhule.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 09, 2024, 12:09:07 PM
wish I could make it
It's pretty easy, although a bit labor intensive.  Roasting and peeling is the least fun part.  Then you wrap them around the filling, batter them, put a toothpick through it to hold it all together, and deep fry.  We've got a couple fish fry rigs we use for big batches, but you could do a handful in a skillet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 09, 2024, 09:39:04 PM
It's pretty easy, although a bit labor intensive.  Roasting and peeling is the least fun part.  Then you wrap them around the filling, batter them, put a toothpick through it to hold it all together, and deep fry.  We've got a couple fish fry rigs we use for big batches, but you could do a handful in a skillet.

You had me at deep fry.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 08:50:38 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/DxBZC2l.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 10, 2024, 08:55:14 AM
A lot of those guys did nothing in the pros ....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 08:56:23 AM
Joe Namath made the list

Tom Brady did not
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 10, 2024, 09:04:05 AM
I think a good list would include their pro performance, or lack thereof.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 10, 2024, 09:07:06 AM
A lot of those guys did nothing in the pros ....
...which is a very big feather in its cap.  But it's still a shitty list.

Completely arbitrary valuation of full careers and 1-year wonders.  Direct competitors ranked backwards (someone, anyone give me the argument of Peyton Manning (4) over Danny Wuerffel (17)).
And Roger freakin' Staubach ranked so highly......
.
Here I am, commenting on a football rankings post.  And for some reason, someone will point it out as a bad thing.  Huh?!?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 10, 2024, 09:07:24 AM
I think a good list would include their pro performance, or lack thereof.
How dare you.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 10, 2024, 09:45:25 AM
Click bait, not worth much thought really.  Someone's opinion.  Yay.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 09:46:53 AM
I like it

Vince Young and Tommie Frazier respected
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 10, 2024, 09:54:26 AM
When I see such lists, I obviously shrug, as I do about a lot of things that have zero impact on me personally.  Someone else no doubt has a different list, fine with me.  No doubt folks argue endlessly about it, fine with me.  I'm relaxed.

My general take on "best of all time" is to have a broad group and not worry about who among them is Number One.  I will opine Jordan is the GOAT, it's just an opinion.  Golfers?  I think it would have clearly been Tiger had he not flamed out.  Baseball?  I'd say Ruth, but I'm not as convinced on that point.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 10:01:51 AM
Tiger flamed out, Jack didn't

GOAT!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 10, 2024, 10:40:10 AM
You had me at deep fry.
This is what they look like right out of the oil, and then plated.  Not my pics, I grabbed them from the net, but it's the same.


(https://i.imgur.com/MCKO4Mh.jpeg)


(https://i.imgur.com/qkVeC3D.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 10, 2024, 10:52:39 AM
Actually not quite the same, my dad doesn't cover the exterior in cheese and bake (although that would be fine), instead he makes a warm sauce that tops them, and the sauce is sort of half-pico de gallo and half-chimichurri.  It's delicious and brightens up the flavor a bit, after the deep-fry.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 10, 2024, 11:29:06 AM
I like it

Vince Young and Tommie Frazier respected
Those 2 are on pious pedestals already.  What list doesn't respect them (even over-respect them)?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 10, 2024, 06:58:33 PM
In New Mexico they make the chiles into a relish that goes on the burger. 

(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata%3Aimage%2Fjpeg%3Bbase64%2C%2F9j%2F4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD%2F2wCEAAkGBxITEhUTEhIWFRUXFRUYFxgYGBcYGhgXFRcXGBgYFxgYHSggGBolHRcXITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0OGxAQGyslICUtLS0tLS0vLSstLS0rLS0tLS0uLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLf%2FAABEIALgBEgMBIgACEQEDEQH%2FxAAcAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAgMEBgcAAQj%2FxABBEAABAwIEAwYEBQMCBAYDAAABAAIRAyEEBRIxQVFhBhMicYGRMqGxwQcUQtHwI1LhFfFDYnKiFySCssLiM1NU%2F8QAGgEAAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgMEAQAFBv%2FEAC4RAAICAQQCAQIFAwUAAAAAAAABAhEDBBIhMRNBUTJhFCJxobEFI%2FAVUoGR0f%2FaAAwDAQACEQMRAD8Ay8rwleSvU5sCj0L1JleErLOo4lesCSlNQBkmmUolMhytfY%2Fsm7E%2F1aktpAj%2FANfQdENpcs3vgGZP2fr4kju2eGYLjYD91peQdi8Phoc8d5U5nYHoOCPYSgymwNYAABAA5Jyo75ffikZMzYUcdC53AHAwgGFxDzUOrVB5iEepMuENrUiSXDr6FedktzsrTSjRJw777bKS1vi5TM%2B1%2FWFDy9hHE3477clKEat9yB6z1Wt%2FIKJjmHY3tabpvDuhxnlsu1GxHA7fQpLnbkcYtvfojumD2TmaSJtEcPn5pRA4cDY%2BnzUenVix2ggbmfLnx90pr4Ik2uL9bXMfyU%2FemgKYsOt87bH%2FACu02t%2FL%2FVNPv4r2EwehiI%2B6ce6D%2FOm3VZv%2BTdo%2FTqG08hdSWvvf0UNrpkTbyjbT%2B%2FyT1J9ttuHRFGYLiSZ6L00gbxB5%2FwCU2HX80sW%2BSO0weUD%2B0HZ%2BhjGaazPF%2Bl4%2BIeR%2ByxvtV2Vr4J3iGqkT4ag28ncit4a5JxGHZUaWPaHNIggiQR5KjHlcRUoWfMNR6Qx6vH4i9g3YWcRh5dQJ8TdzTn6t%2Biz9rk%2Fcn0K6J%2BpN1Ehj0srUjXIacEghPuCZeVjMOaU40pgFO01hw7K5KDFyI4DNKWkBKQ0HZ7K8XiUhZp4E4Am0Y7M5HUxdYU2bWL3f2t%2FdCwkFew3ZY4upqfaiw%2BL%2FAJj%2FAGhbB3LGNaxohrRYL3LcDTw9JtOm0ANHueZSqt1LkmMihErx7Y4zK9BgJLwCQem3RIfIYmm76rzHcCBJM3G3n1SnlMnNKUljXglvxdBCVs5Ds7AjxCTJ2tMeykaN0NwuLpt8QLjvcgj%2Bb7pNTtMwTAadP%2FM0e99kTxN0bFMMMmxva0%2Fz1S3tvaxtZVir2lsLC45gD6qLW7TVoJbER%2BmCY95XeKVdMYoMuVV4EONrz7dEnvWERz3HInjzCz%2BpnuIcPieJ4ER7AqFVx1eYcH346XD6rHjlQSxmn0nTLdXLj9F66q1zrG87eiykZi9ogl3HcEJFXNzaHkTueCB4pVyFsV9mtNriDJvytw%2BtkqliWmTqHCb%2FAFCyn8%2B8XLpHH0%2Bi8%2F1wDZ67ZJHeNP2bFTrA2mdv57KRSxDSLOBFljVDPjwefQqZRz97bB5CNTmvQL06fs18O%2FnRK1LMsN2mqtAh%2FofsjOB7VuMSRK38Ul9SAell6Lq5gc0teAQQQQdiDuFhn4kdifyb%2B%2BotJw7z5924n4f%2Bk8PZa5gu0FM72U7G4WjiqL6T4ex4II%2B45EKvFni%2FpZJlxNdo%2BYaZTwcpnabJH4LEvoPvF2u%2FuYfhd9vMFQGlXJk6Qpzk08pTk05aYzwKRRTDApNIIAkiUFyTK5HZlAEFeykL2Uuw6FJSQClBCEeraPwwynucKKjh46vi66f0hZDlNNjq1MVCAwvGonaOK2mhn4LQaDQaYsDwtayVmnSoKEbZYqrgNyhVbN6YJF7cVUM2zOq%2BZLo%2BSB4iu8mFFbbKljVcsumN7WUxZrZ5klVLNu2ri7wmQNg2Pqq9jqrnHR79VIwWUzBKox4N3MhsYxiExmOKraS55aDyJlTKgmZJJg7lIJY2JcAAmq2cYVnxVJMbCT9FZHxwMFMxtVrSzWdJsQTaPVR3OnjBXju0WF%2FTRe%2FrFvclMVO0zB8OFHqWj6ArfMvSCX6HVHFd33CU27tQf%2F56Y9Sf%2FiEk9peeGp%2Fz0XeX7DFYsPunxVmDJtxUR%2FaVvHCUz6%2F%2FAFSafaqh%2BrCx%2FwBJB%2FZd5PsaEamLqOhpe6xsZuCeu6dxWGqmA4BxixLRfrMSoNDtTgi7xUXsvvw%2BTkbGf4V0HXEcfEPqOizfB9o7d8FcdinCR3XTwn6gqFXxQaC0NbtMOOk25cD7q8nF4SqS4aZgCQQ7baYj6IFn2W0nuY5hBZs6N2jne8XmUEscJdGbueUVinmrhMNaPcp1mb1OQUHF4Q06jmi4BgHmOacYw7R%2FPNJeOJVj2PssuEzzUIc0IjQpavE36qs4PSPMbqz5LSe4iAQLfNLlpYzHSxqKtBKhjSwAKy5DnVxLiFGf2aa8gh5b0j%2FKQ%2FJu6ILXk87bQoZaHUKdxRJLLhktr7HfxXyP8zh2YukNT6NnRuaZufY391j7VueTZ%2BxtRuHqXFRsg7tNv2Wa9v8As3%2BTxB0D%2BjUl1Ppzb6fRerglJLbLs8fNj2O%2FRVnFNp0hNqkmFsCfYE3SbKl06SxRtm7qQhcpHdrkzYBvK0CuSQUppSCgWAvYXgSltmUc1smFr2X1mYfD06fAMHuQsiaDNt1acqqYnw94RoAtq39gk5scprgbi75CeaZvJIAsgVTGOJjmj5w7In4ieEQP3KdwmXOudIaOZgJMdPLuXBVaBGDwxnVp97fVPVXO2BjyujFTuWDxVJPT90GxWdUQf6dEvPMmB91Q5448WNjjnLpEOrgmmSS5x6n7BQH4TeG7cm%2FzmiP56s6YYxgPTZJh5%2BKo4%2FL6JfliukOjga7BhwbzfQT8vqlDAP8A7fmEU7tvX3K40GH9IXed%2FAxYmDfyRG5aPMr11Dm5vuiBy6jxps9glUcHSaZaxoPMNA%2BcIHqX8BrTSftAitQbHxCUJxGGPMH1Vzdh6Z3Y0nqAfqolbDUxsxvsEp6tr0OjoW%2FZTzTI3Ccpk8D7WVqNCm74mNPmFzcBQO9Fnz%2FdCtYvaN%2F0%2Ba6aKz3jgZO%2FOEo42p%2FeVoeWZFhqsAsa2BAgRaSb80XpdhcHxH2To51LpC54dnDZkRrOJu4%2B6n6XHuwXSN%2FJas3sNgdiybyDPyU7Ddi8EP8AhyOAOw8kxZPsKcor2ZTicMANbOEfz3Vs7DZ7TcRTqjS6bOizuh5FX%2Bh2ZwjNqLD5ifqgXbPs3SdSHdNbTqC4Atq5tA4nZb5XFWbjyQn%2FAG5N1%2FBa8IQ66YzrCHQSybgg9A4RPkFSOxXatzHDDYg7Wa87g8A7p1WisriN0%2BORSVoi1OmngnT%2FAOPuZ3jGFmJwwBnTDfYR80R%2FFJ7fylIGNXeCJ3AgzCf7UuZQcK0S1pB8j06LOM9zqrin6qhsJ0t4NBSHjcsymT6nItqQLLU25qeSSFW%2Bjz0hVEKfTQ%2BnuptMrYM6UR6V6vIXJ9itpUUoBJalhQlZ6ClsEmBxSFIwLZe0dVxqDuCwgbAaJPE8ZVnoYDwy4gAC52%2BajZfSawTx4lCs%2BxLnmdR0jZnD15rHkpcFUY9JBjFZ%2FQpCKTdbuew99ygeLzyrU%2BI%2BgsPZDA2RJXUY1CRZRym5HpY8MIfqSmh7zcn7KZSw7W8EprgNoSXVFyjQTyDjioz6wC6rU52QnGYjgLBczouyecWE%2FTrW3VebqOwJ8giVGg8N1FpA5wsv5Cckgj3y8OIUEXuSAOpC59Wk34qjZ5cfYJbV9D4ZYrthBuITVStKjNxdLTqBcRfZp%2B6jMzWm4w1rvWB90twk%2FQ%2BOqxR7kTw9PscotB4Ow9z%2ByYrYyrTN2NA4Wn%2F3FKUHJ0jpf1DFH3ZcchrOB2Vobi4Hic1vmQsnwmYVqvgL3MNrtt5wGwm8TlVUPIcXObuHOMkjrcwU6NQ4bIc2sjN2omrVM%2Bw7fixFMdNQJUep25w7LNLnnoCB7rJ8RhzTIcZIdxjb1FlKw2LbaeCKUpJXEn80X2jSMZ%2BJbKYBdQIBmCXGLdQ2yF1vxbDiNOFbI2lxP2UHAii5n9VhLbxvF9%2F50UDJ8votrO0ix%2BE2%2BaWtTUHJ2YpRcvpX7%2F8ApDxuY97UNUMDSTPhNrq65B2gcaejVtz4dEMzbsqWtFWi2GmZbNpJtBPnsh2B7zDDTUbGokjUOHQrsWppbovgp%2FE%2BRbJ9fwWrMMW18t16muF2kdYifmqHmGG7t5bw4HmOCPd4PjG33QbOawdHO%2FsvUxyvlEuvwx8e5eiCXLxICUCnni2OsUimVGaU9TRJAtkzUuTS5NoVZU2pcpphTqkZUhbVIwtbQ4O5KOCvZWGlpoZqHWlRsxJIte6lM7P0%2B4aTqbVLZJk2m8RsmsJgixp1HUTty%2Bainq8bUku0X44zTTojUm6gAPdWDLsmbVe2mwxIJ1Ha0fuE4MsIptJGibbX2ngouMx5ovaGWJbuRwUcpbuF2FPI2x9vZ8CoW1ZY5pgxHyneeaiZngmU6lq2lpEgENneNzvwUjHZ3VeaZgGAfFxInY%2BV1Fxz%2B%2FgPZcgiJ2AuCY90EJ5VL83RjlXTFnuwBYOkbm8%2BnVDcXWYRdoHkIPyXjKIYbCItAsD5jimMwwNRxmmNU%2FpG8ngOaan%2BbsBSZP7MsIDqt9yGkmbWG3v7okcQXgMOkui8CJI5DgieJw5ploq0DQc9oOmG%2BKIFy0kSB7QEKqsNN%2BvVvaNjG1oUk8u%2BTT4PQlo5KO%2BLs9flzHNcHVNBsWm5F9xb6IBhcraamwPNxMczM8v2VzpMY5jiQZDTAg3PCLeXzUTFZM8gVGM8MS61xeJI9eCOGdxjT9kihb5ZHw2DpCnDtMxMxIIkkA38J4Kj1Wf1akH9bvqtP%2FJMbSvHwy63nss%2Bx%2BHFPER%2BioJaeAPEeh%2BoTtNlctxmRpOrHBhXhoc10jjzB6pbS90Nc46ZmOE84RTBYfQfF8JEHyK8xYbTqBjXB06TIIIh0H77LPLb4MXY7lOEAcHO4GeHOPXdXDMMM1tF9RjBra0nzAmQR5fRCv8ASWaNTan6ePOJBHJEe0GIdTwPhBd3mlhI4NjU4%2F8AbHqoJSk80aGS%2BkpJ1O%2BEEMgTMETxAHFNf6a0N8Lf39%2BCdGYWDRMCYBPOJhSMK81HsaDAJibbcbcTEqtykvsgaDnZEh7DRd%2BnZIznsxVpTVpguYTJj9PtuFAwL3YetJEAPgcy3gVfcDmT6gimNQ3NptxgfzZefknLFlcl0%2F5DptWgZRqE4V2o3ABB4W5%2BqgUnsqsDagsT8xy5K1YnKGVaWgamHi1tvLgqlh%2Bz9VjnNeJnZxm0co4rse3YnuqwN3LJTMjbpIBkEEdR%2B6o2dYB9GqWP8weBHNX3AUalN7WF%2B5s10avQcR1Q78R8BVLadeQ6m0aTG7XOPHpaF6n9Onmhl2T6fQnUz3Q7KIvQvFy%2BgPNHWqRRCiNcpFBy2LMkTdK5J7xcnbkK2sp7U60JtqeCkZUjlNyfCGrVaAPCCC48gOahFXPLaQoYcf3OufM%2Fsp8%2BXxwsfhx75UEK7i7UW7NAHTmlZdp1Cd43%2FtmNkFwb3BtRzjZzp8%2BHsAmWYh5dopiS4Rz36DkvMWFJN%2FJZkyvosmYYplMtLn6p2vsbcBwN1Wc6cHv70AC0b773Pumc%2BwlceEDvBxLZ8PQg3CCjv3uFFgc539oHi%2F2R4cTrdYmUkH8oxReQ03jZFyC0xzt1CV2W7B4kDVUc1k3idRHmdldKXZBseIlynzZIKVR5OXRn%2BMpHfl9Eb7IV6QqtqPBa1okTO8Wtv1VpqdlGRxXjezQja%2FP%2BbpL1FRaQUUr5JuMdSxIBLZDQS3ULTa3T%2FCr3aTA06Wg6RpMl17iI%2BGfNWbDZSQI1GOSm1ssDwGuEgbCB%2FJUmFTbcmUR1HjfD4Kh2ax2pxaCSAYYTAMHnwngrDpJ1wAGmzY%2FnO6n0Mnpt%2FQPYKdTw5a0ta0QeipUMrfXHZPPJFu0Z8%2FKqg1NOoBzYcSO8%2FVOpl%2FC7Ta9uKpuOyaoajA5ryxpPxADcjgCeQW5sw08PkkYjKQd2SnKWfb%2BWIClFPlmWV8ncA3xaZIgO2Ei02529lX87wDmVGtgh%2FGwHzWwYrK2uaWwBcHa%2F%2BxVdzfJ6YA%2BLUCZPAN4AeqzFKUVygnNWVPKy6wMkfyyuDqGvDBp5z9vuUMbTANgE9UzKRoBtOyR43LJu%2BApTtUB8wyVhs0SUzl2QPa8PBMg%2BisGFCNYNgTuaoHcwHVyJ1RzXO3AR3KMldTuHQUUw1PmiNNoU0tM58Nm%2Bdo9wuHhsOJceZT35QHcJ2iFLbSKojpLSSXQryFIz%2FKS2rTq6NQBgnjfmhXbWn%2F5Z9PTqJEtbNwQQdQ5wtLq4aRdUntHhHU3hxMwfDO1%2BB6J8MU4ZlKX%2BUampR2oxJeEqRm9dzq1QuADtRkNEC1rBRJX0Sdo8%2BqYsJxrk0E4FhpI1rxNyuRAlfCWCkrkkcLlWqhW10296ZdHCYgfdVWnuJ5hWx7aYcRRFiQGW4ECIHInZS6lR4sdhk1dD%2BAwxr1hTBhjR4ugiw67Kw0qdKhdovET0UHJMtfhy81ZlwBHLjM9bofneP1HS3ivMzNylti%2BCiK9scxOb6qhIjxWA5xxVx7MZGxv9QtGt0SY%2BSzjJjqxdNp4T8gtfwT4AAWrClwDKQYpUwFLpwoLKicZWSJx2sHsmloUWq4BOU3zxQzPMwpU2nxeIX3FvO9kU8f5NxifNE9lUAEmwG5VPz78TqGHqd2xjn3glsW9Tv6Kt4%2FtniKjjSpnRSv8ADOt3meG3BAq%2BTuqP1Pc8AyST4jH8tdU4caSVjPH8l8%2F8T6ZDCA%2B5vMeEWvYyfKAiNXt0WUDXIc9o4U3NcTG8AkWEhUxnZJgp97IBiCXCWxz8%2BCkvwBdgnUqbGVO6cDq%2BEO8IdLZMCxi%2FGeiY4x9N%2FwDZrxqnwP5j%2BIGKJFWlFOmAJFSC4k7ggHgI9Uxg%2FwAXcW2pqqMpPpzdgBadMD4XSeu4O6oWLe0vDbkiZG8Ecun7ojTwlFugODtbgSbbf278P2TYf21Vs7ZGXpG15Z23wWJY1zZlxjSR4geRj67KBn2ctZrhrdLhcHh6hZvlJbRJ0NLnEap13DR0AIB395Q7tS3GVWvIP9JjSXiYJgSZ5wLwglOWR0nQMtOo8rkdrdqWOqmmxxgyNQ29OfmnK2bNpAHeVSsopePVsACUSr1muO386rfw0IvajoO1bNCybOaZiXK2YTF0%2BYWMUgHGGjS%2FVA0n0sPRHs5NXDUaIL3Bz9Vjcw3TMGdxqFkEsPPBrhas1pmKHBTMNiw60rE8DnmJAjXyjUTMFWnIM%2FAq6Xy13Inhwv6hIljceTvHwa5hHBE2OlA8lxTKgsQiZ8J6K3BKoX6JZrmiTKCdoqIdSdYHTeDxRVpMqv59iZJpi1ue53%2BwRaj80KXYWK1KzBu1VcOxNTwaC06SOem0mEKaivazCPp4qp3hkuOuejvuNvRCQVZi4ghOR3N2PBKSabHHYEophcirPY54bAaJM%2FZZLLGL5Z1qgfK5eLk3kEBpQSYS2hKGD%2BBoB9RjDMFwBjkrW9opuYGf8PTE3Mg2SMnwzWUGVGt8ZBJcN7k8fJNmrL%2FDsN5UWae%2BVfBXhgkrYbzLHveNRI1EXHAdBKABp8TyRMEDj5lTcRQe9vhIkKrZiXtJ8R91MoXNpHbuDzDZkaOIbVOzTB8jYrZsgxrarA9pkESD5rBXk1HNY0XJAHUlal%2BHdcUy%2BhJIY608QZv9U%2FPFRimKUrdGi6rKLVxum5NkirWVP7RZ7DzSAB8M3MSeS8%2BnknSGxXB5mn4hBtTu2scRJGo2uOm%2FuqjnmY1sQ8sDjoIk3gQeHmkVwypUf%2FTc0e5%2Bl0zRonSYMabevX%2BcVfHBCLtI63RNyenU1Oc%2BYpggTEzFza2x%2BasuV4jWCbEeESZiDaTFyBb3VVw%2BJLW6dRF%2FinyBKn4M1GPa6kA4dDIN7yD57LZR5thqXFFrzfEVBhACwMDajQRqm0XjnGoXPMeiMuqAB4eHPaWO1gkw5oBIHnv7BRcFjmPZUa5oB8WogwDIifQAD06IeKrixlRjwCD42GIg%2BEGZtuT0QtX0EnXYNwWVd1LajgNTS91iTEgAW3HCUMxmIcHkvnTpiYMSdoP3Vgx7u9wprw0OpuaTPnDgORuD6IFmFQEET%2BmY9ExfcU%2BOh%2FA4kkHSbEAHymfrHsj4bTdVbrJDe7IqA7DUPF5gtIF%2BQ6qq5Gw0y1zhuBIIm5Vn7Q9p6TcPVpENc91MsaRv4xEeTblBNNy2oZGdLcUHDtDGl7SYkgTxHAnr0U1uO00zYEmRJ4HgQoGAxECCRtbVPyClYlrXlraYuOXH0T5rnkSpUrRcsi%2FL1Bh6mkd7rOsD%2FlAkkcDYn3RDtvlwqadGqo5rTDZBcC5wJiYECAouR4N9Gg4mJcPETNhIgNjcnYoicK7E0WxULDR1kW%2BKQCATO0iF50NQnlpdHedTe0z8YOtTqziKb2tsBIMbCBO3HZF24jW%2BZMja14ExYDjKuWUZiK04asLhmhzTFweNhy4%2BSpWZ5a%2FC4g0yTaNLv%2BQzBMbGys37g9tFt7G9oXNfpBnjGwjibwtPyTPO9b4wAeN59iN1huCzDSWhlAvcBHh1GWmCbe4nqrxlWfMNPWGPaQ24IPMD1JgeyT9FtBSSmaFmGctpsltzsAqbmeaOYBVMv8R25kGLb2hDq2ZmoWPe13dkGLGBafFGxt8kHf2kaHaXOENEi9ufutUptbpAKCSaQH7cYzvqrXBmkhpmREkmY9PugmXUmu33RWqO%2Ff3jjYmZOwEojleKol4ZVpNLQSBYAtBtIj09kqeqlGGxEU7lK2RsFQuBsEba5zToabHfqm8TQp0KvdufGzmnm07FRjnVXxBmGB8VnE2815%2Fjnln%2BnzwKpor2Kqs1u8P6nfVeqW%2FJXOJcarASSSL7ndcveWo0yVbv5CKYpuVYLvqjaYMTJJ5AJdPKSTd4HkJ%2FZPUqrKJOiS7YuPLjEbIpZ41%2BXlhuSD9HDOptNOmS7TJ52Jv5IZiMZ4gGglzrQOJ8kjKc5012zOlx0m07229kbr08PTe40%2FE%2Fby3lQSbjK5IdHKlD7imN0MDqpAtxMD67fVB80dTrghsEwYcOBHXkgOe1nuqzUcXcRO3oNkQysOYzUwA6oN7x890Xh2pZG%2Bf2E7m%2BbPcnwQpDvHCXn4RwaOZ6qZ2ZzXRjr2D7eouPuoWKx5DNAZeI1E%2FOOahNwIbphzjULdYPAGNQTmt6e730dB07Nn%2FMjTMqidqqTDiAQdQj2OwH85hC8J2xqBuh7QXARMxJ8oQp%2BMe55e4kkz%2FsEjT4Jwb3F1p8oNtq6C1vF0fyVFz2poc1zeO8G0Dh5xxUehiWuIJmwjdHnUaNWnpMA8zzN5VXT5NfKB1OvSq0jI0T6heZdi%2B7Fw7QeLN2zaADxP3QrMYZp8REOuOBjiBEf7r1mIqVCO7adI%2FuMA%2BgWuPFvoU5qPZaMzLSKZYWkPL3PsA62mIA22%2F7il5y6i5umnV0Ohpc2d4cCRpO3vwQpmV16hB10zAsyDxG2r7qHnGV14BAaQfCSwzBva4Bg8ClRyQutyB80WWTK3POHqgBrpc5wbIki6rGIexndte0SfE7nEc%2Bv2UjC4ypRLAXRYi3Th81G7Q5c1zTiKUmSO8bvE2DhxAm0cJWQa30%2Bn7OeoT4JmI7Q0mQGeIW4bQeaFZnjqNVoMODtRsAIAtHUndCq1B7SA4aZAcPI8VIw7AL8VUoxirQEstiaOAc4%2BEEDqCFa%2BzeX06bruvpJJkAugSGNJs2TaUJw2KG0ojlrJeCSRe1pupNROUk0%2BETyk2WTtGKrW0Hky0jTUY2S2k8CxHQiRMfp3Mp3KsTAdTcDDwLiLEGQd1CqtNR%2BkuJBB1Xtb7WTWGa4QLmNucLzbpLq0LjNxdks4g4fFA1PEe7Gl3AlznaY8tjc7Il2jcKzmtJZZoLhaSDJiQeED3QXtDjWd5hzqBeA9pYIJAMEGJt%2Br2QHNKOisXVAR3snWxxbA%2BGY2b6jjur8U99N8Wj0PxEXFFppPp0wcQ2TUawfBJDouRBtxIm2wQ3B9r67GVCaXiLTECAzkb8EKpZv3bWMY8uDWwLWgkmTyMG6JZfmhLdThEyLfVdOco81f7CfxDHsJ26tFQnQWGRaxvAb0VFzPHd452mdM25xwmFY%2B1WUs74FjQNVKm4gCAS7V4rWvAQp2TsLZa6DxCoxZcdKXPJzz2Ly3FOrltMgANZ1mG3c72Vpphjwzu3F7gBJ0wD0vuRzVPy5r6FVtRrQ7STIOzgQQ5p8wSEYwmZUxUJpU3UxPwOMgeVrBI1OPdzACEFKZa%2B0%2BUvrUKTw0mtTMGLl1M8DHEH6lQMkxBaCxzCJBBt7%2BSsvZ%2FH62gg8fZT81wRcNdMjW0EED9TeO%2B5H7rxvPJx8U10Pz6d1cSs%2FlW%2F%2FsC9Xv5B3Irlm77kmyfwV7NKLgYiFXmsLjHDdx5BaZnjaZaCwNBbcze3UngqZnOlo0MEbuMcS6%2FyXs43se02cXF0C21GtB0N8QiHG5B5gbAq05VjKNRkuIFSAHBxiSOIP2VZy7B94%2FSfhgl3kP8AMJ3%2FAEmpqdpaS2f5ujyRjJU2aourE9ocMNcHa6HYSo6kdTT5jgUVzChpaxkglsyR1%2FnyUGlQko8clsp9DIrglUX9%2BNoeBeOPUJzE4Z4ex8eFrADzJgiAPZFezGVf1JvtbpturvTydgAcRKHp8dGqHJlLskrPMtYemw%2BpUapltUHTuZiOMrY35YN2xqi081Hw%2BV027iXSS42m%2FwDPkj8skMUPgygZPiR%2Fw5HUge10mplWNA%2F%2FAA1QOgP1C2DG4APayQA1ri4xubAADkDJv0UymIFtvb6IvN9gqfyYng8pqTNSlU9WO%2FZWnKctL7AQtDeN0huGbO1%2FJSamcprjsXLT7vZmWfY6rTqfl6LHRA1vidU38JGzfqieXVHVqT2NY7UWHSHNcJc24gxxIj1V8pYBrRAFha%2F8lT8FSDSLKdtOKVcr39zfw6rkxTH4DE1KY%2F8AK4hrw639KpedxOny9l2XZTi6Du8rU61IC0OY4B4IuDIgtjfzX0JRfPX%2FAApz6bXjSdjYz13%2B6uhlUo7UqMlipHzHnWDfUqOqNjadE%2BINAsAOUD1goMGuWz1%2FwiYarnjFVGw5xaYEtbPgEzeLXT2N%2FDLD2Ie4c%2FhE%2BgEBOWTZFLsXtfSMXeyGzJ6Hr0Vi7L4lzntpuBmx8xzVuxn4fUtX6zG0m3sApmW9iWUy95mX0y3fmWnbhtCTnyxlBr2bLE9pVe0GYCjV0N1XFyLwD873Rj%2FS6tTACpTfdzjqLbHQ0kQD5iT%2FAIUn%2FwAPtZBLzHvtsOlldciyF1Bjqcyw3AI%2BFxFy08OoUjUdq29oDwOjH8Pkz6RPgJdG5sb8fNS8yzPu2hlWmCWC9gS0OJgG8jb%2BSthwnZ6mHaiAXWNxaRxRPDZexwmoxsngQD6nhJ6dOSKEpSd5ENjgdcnzVi8T3jS6myWg3IbETzgWRHA4sPADeFi0raO2GXsFF3d02gxwaPssYqO%2FL1dQYDv0F%2BNuKY5xncUuV0dPT1G0XTtNgBTo08S3YMYC0mYEADfgHOIjqs%2FzKsNcMtN5%2FZXrF9qMPisN3DwaZ06SCCR6OAje9%2BSz7EYE0ahYXtcbGRyNxM7HoiwpW18EsI12TKVcgAD1RU1GU6YdbVUY4bbCQPsU1kmRVa5ECBuSeXNFGZS1tfWXHwEANItYRPzlKyyii3Bhle5jHYrM%2FwCo5hNiLff7LQ8G%2BTDbquZjhsP4X0y3vp3DLutMHYgQTfoiXZTEPc4mJ0mCOXp6FeZrMW%2BSmlV0ehDoMvy9xJN7nkuRz82037yFyDw4%2FwDf%2B6F7p%2FBjFXEtMy6ZHNOYGhRq1GNqHwm1jHkCVy5fTSxxfojaT7LBXymjSEU2hvuT7m5Q%2BrgHOBAJi%2FH6rlyRKCfZjQAxWBfMaTxkwpGXZK6biF6uS4Lg6KpFsyDDhu%2FnboUXdXESuXIpdhxRGfidwolav779P8rlyDsNIVRxDw6CPCWk%2BsiPuiFOpta3ouXLmahLnTKdouXLkhjCVIIul0z4ly5AzkgjhyDxhTBXJXLkyDAkhvX%2FACV664%2B68XI0waEuoA3XY2kA313%2Bf2C5csn9LNXaOwdIAX4oho5HguXLodHS7GHkggJ8FerkhctjPQFzmoCwgkLFO29MMM8yVy5HpucqNyKoAR5eHBtPeBJMbongMlD7vqnVNyIjruvFysyTaXBNixxfLLUe0T8OYw9JjiBBLyY5WA3TFDtAalQPq0WsMAO0GdccYOx4f7LlyjdOO1oem7DuGqtqMJcIdu2xhpbpA24m8%2BS7JK%2FcV36pc15IdIuZuD19Oa5cpXL%2B2%2FsMh9VB9zQbhpjyK5cuXnbF%2FlB2f%2F%2FZ&hash=1804acb191b7d19d97fd8ab0ccac94f2)

It's so standard that even the nation chains have to acquiesce. 

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Rz2HA53ezeA/mqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on August 10, 2024, 07:09:06 PM
New Mexico is second to none on fat eating. I remember going there and thinking their plates of nachos defied physics.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 10, 2024, 07:27:44 PM
New Mexican food is great, my SIL is from Santa Fe and worked restaurants there for many years, then went to culinary school.  Her home recipes are fantastic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on August 10, 2024, 07:37:27 PM
Oh yeah I wholeheartedly approve and am pleased that Hatch chiles have found their way to my local Kroger. Also saw someone there eat their weight in nachos
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 10, 2024, 08:11:07 PM
It's good, but I mean they try to put it in EVERYTHING.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 08:12:11 PM
like the egg lobby
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 10, 2024, 08:34:22 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Us5BGwh.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 11, 2024, 12:45:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VcEoeod.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 11, 2024, 01:11:17 PM
Missing JT23 on that BS list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 11, 2024, 02:09:02 PM
Missing JT23 on that BS list.
Justin Timberlake?  I mean, he's a popular entertainer but I don't recall him ever suiting up on the gridiron.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 11, 2024, 03:23:42 PM
Justin Timberlake?  I mean, he's a popular entertainer but I don't recall him ever suiting up on the gridiron.
Yeah, and while I think you need to be pretty athletic for boy band work, I'm pretty sure that he tries to catch a pass across the middle with a safety bearing down on him, the over under on broken bones will be 202.5. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 11, 2024, 06:33:14 PM
Yeah, and while I think you need to be pretty athletic for boy band work, I'm pretty sure that he tries to catch a pass across the middle with a safety bearing down on him, the over under on broken bones will be 202.5.
But not one hair out of place!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on August 11, 2024, 06:33:53 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VcEoeod.jpeg)
1 and 2 were on the same roster, but weren't consecutive Gators due to stupidity. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 12, 2024, 07:57:41 AM
JT23 did this.

(https://i.imgur.com/NEtnuwb.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 15, 2024, 04:46:38 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/TbbFjqi.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2024, 04:50:52 PM
MDot's ranking?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 15, 2024, 05:09:09 PM
Mine
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2024, 05:17:41 PM
I guess "trash" was much too tame for MDot
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 15, 2024, 05:42:02 PM
I guess "trash" was much too tame for MDot
I would have been kinder if I hadn't included my school in the tier
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on August 15, 2024, 06:17:02 PM
https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/real-estate/stuart-florida-is-ranked-the-best-coastal-town-in-the-us/

My place.   Not bad. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 16, 2024, 07:57:25 AM
https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/real-estate/stuart-florida-is-ranked-the-best-coastal-town-in-the-us/

My place.  Not bad.
Are you on the water? How is that inlet over there? Rough?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 16, 2024, 08:38:02 AM
ESPN listed 32 sleepers who could break out this fall. 

Among them: Husker sophomore wideout Jaylen Lloyd.

Others to make the list from the Big Ten Conference:



Marlin Klein, TE, Michigan Wolverines
Audavion Collins, CB, Penn State Nittany Lions
Anthony Smith, DL, Minnesota Golden Gophers
TeRah Edwards, DL, Illinois Fighting Illini
Denzel Boston, WR, Washington Huskies
Marcelles Williams, CB, USC Trojans
Trech Kekahuna, WR, Wisconsin Badgers
Seth Anderson, WR, Iowa Hawkeyes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 16, 2024, 08:43:50 AM
Trech isn't a sleeper. He broke out last season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 16, 2024, 08:54:42 AM
Jaylen kinda did as well.  ESPN hedging.........

Lloyd played in 10 games as a true freshman, including a start against Maryland. In his rookie campaign, the Omaha Westside grad caught six passes for 237 yards and three touchdowns. All three of his scores were longer than 50 yards.

Lloyd continued being explosive and fast after the football season, competing in the jumps for the Husker track and field team. During the indoor track season, Lloyd finished fifth in the long jump (24-3 1/2) and seventh in the triple jump (50-0) at the Big Ten Championships. Outdoors, Lloyd placed fourth in the Big Ten in the long jump (25-1¾) and 12th in the triple jump (50-1¾).

A potential favorite target for Dylan Raiola, Lloyd hooked up with the freshman quarterback in the Red-White Spring Game for a 64-yard touchdown.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 16, 2024, 09:06:50 AM
The best secondary in the conference might be in Madison.

Not worried.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 16, 2024, 09:11:45 AM
don't leave them in Madison on November 23rd ;)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 17, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/atl-declared-no-2-most-livable-city-us-2024


Another ranking of a highly personal metric.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2024, 09:14:07 AM
Viewership and fandom are at all-time highs

Looking at last year’s TV data and this year’s packed schedule, On3 is predicting the 10 most-watched games of the college football season:

1. Michigan at Ohio State
The most-watched game in college football for three years running, the drama around Michigan at Ohio State in 2024 will be high. Ryan Day and the Buckeyes have lost three consecutive years in The Game. Questions remain entering the fall about the quarterback position for Michigan. Plus, the Wolverines are coming off a national championship and in Year One with Sherrone Moore. Meanwhile, expectations are sky-high for Ohio State in Columbus. Last year’s game on FOX brought in 19.07 million. With so much pressure and expectations on the Buckeyes in 2024, this game should live up to its billing.

2. Georgia at Alabama
A rematch of last year’s SEC Championship Game which drew in 17.52 million on CBS, this year’s edition will play out in the regular season and feature first-year Alabama coach Kalen DeBoer. The Tide will have be coming off a bye when they host the Bulldogs. Like Alabama, Georgia will be coming off a bye. The Bulldogs open the season against Clemson and visit Kentucky before playing the Tide.


3. Texas at Michigan
Dubbed as one of the top nonconference matchups of the college football season, the reigning national champions will host Texas in the Big House on Sept. 7. Both ranked in the top 10 entering the season, the lone previous meeting between the two schools came in the 2005 Rose Bowl following the 2004 season. The game is slotted for Big Noon Kickoff on FOX.

4. Ohio State at Oregon
Viewed as the most-anticipated matchup in the new Big Ten, Ohio State will visit Oregon on Oct. 12. Gametime has yet to be announced but the expectation is the game will be in the primetime slot on NBC. Both teams should be undefeated at this point in the season. And with the new 12-team College Football Playoff, both will be jousting for seeding and standing in the Big Ten rankings. Two of the biggest brands in the sport are now in the same conference and should draw eyeballs.


5. Notre Dame at Texas A&M
As one of the prime matchups of Week 1, the top-20 matchup at 7:30 p.m. ET on ABC will be of high appeal. Mike Elko’s first game as head coach in College Station will feature his former Duke quarterback, Riley Leonard, in his first appearance with the Fighting Irish. It’s the start of a crucial Year Four for Marcus Freeman, who has yet to make the College Football Playoff. With the expansion, expectations will be higher to make the postseason. Texas A&M and Notre Dame have both suffered season-ending injuries on the offensive side of the ball in training camp.

6. Oklahoma-Texas
This matchup brought in 7.87 million on ABC a year ago, sitting just outside the top 10. But now an SEC conference game, the Red River Rivalry will have some revamped energy behind it. Scheduled for Oct. 12 at the Cotton Bowl, it’s slated to be a top-20 matchup. Brent Venables broke through last year, scoring his first win over Texas as Oklahoma’s head coach. Now he will bring in first-year starter Jackson Arnold.


7. Texas at Texas A&M
Texas and Texas A&M have played each other 118 times in a series that began in 1894 but have not played since 2011 because the Aggies left the Big 12 to join the SEC the following year. Now they are conference foes again, this time in the SEC. The rivalry is set to be renewed on Nov. 30 with Texas visiting the Aggies in College Station. The schools are expected to announce a sponsor of the rivalry series this week. State Farm Insurance sponsored the rivalry in all sports from 2004-11 before Texas A&M left for the SEC. Gametime has yet to be announced.

8. LSU-USC
A year ago, Florida State and LSU played in the Sunday game of Labor Day weekend which brought in 9.17 million viewers on ABC. Now the Tigers will play USC in the Modelo Vegas Kickoff Classic at Allegiant Stadium. Schedule for Sunday, Sept. 1 at 7:30 p.m. ET on ABC, both programs struggled at times during the 2023 season. Garrett Nussmeier (LSU) and Miller Moss (USC) will be starting their first games as true starters. It will be the first look at USC’s defense under defensive coordinator D’Anton Lynn, too.


9. Miami at Florida
A major college football game in the Sunshine State in Week 1, it could be the defining game of the year for Miami or Florida depending on the outcome. Billy Napier is on the hot seat in Year Three with the Gators. A win over the Hurricanes could set the tone for a crucial season. For Miami, expectations are high after the Hurricanes pieced together one of the top portal classes in the country. Mario Cristobal has yet to find success on the field during his head coaching stint at Miami. Either way, the Aug. 31 matchup at 3:30 ET will have major ramifications.

10. Colorado at Nebraska
A year ago, Nebraska at Colorado brought in 8.73 million viewers on ABC. Plenty of star power was involved in that game, headlined by Shedeur Sanders, Travis Hunter and Deion Sanders. But now in Year Two of the Matt Rhule era, the Huskers have their star in true freshman quarterback Dylan Raiola. With plenty of talent on both sidelines and a 7:30 p.m. ET kickoff on NBC on Sept. 7, this game should live up to the hype.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 19, 2024, 09:42:15 AM
Strong list and Georgia @ Texas isn't even on it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 19, 2024, 09:47:36 AM
Nor is Wisconsin/Bama.

Colorado/Nebraska? 

Is this 1999?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 19, 2024, 09:48:50 AM
Nor is Wisconsin/Bama.

Colorado/Nebraska?

Is this 1999?
I guess they think the Deion Hype Train will continue this year.  The Buffs got a LOT of extra viewers last year because of it, but I'm not so sure that's going to extend into 2024.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 19, 2024, 09:58:53 AM
I guess they think the Deion Hype Train will continue this year.  The Buffs got a LOT of extra viewers last year because of it, but I'm not so sure that's going to extend into 2024.
Neb and Col each have games against better opponents that will be more watched, IMO.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2024, 10:31:42 AM
it's someone's ranking

may have to do with the primetime slot on the 2nd saturday of football - matching up with little else

Rhule vs Sanders is interesting for some folks - clash of cultures - old school vs new stuff

apparently, 8.73 million viewers was top ten last season
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 19, 2024, 10:39:48 AM
I think Neb versus USC will get a ton of eyeballs.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Kris60 on August 19, 2024, 10:44:01 AM
I think Neb versus USC will get a ton of eyeballs.
Classic Big Ten matchup.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 19, 2024, 11:07:29 AM
Very sad.

The Eastern Indies really should have listened to JoePa. Things would look a lot different today.

Penn State, Miami, FSU, BC, Cuse, Louisville, WVU, VT, Pitt, Rutgers. 

Helluva conference, and stable. Great TV markets, fertile recruiting.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 19, 2024, 11:40:59 AM
I guess they think the Deion Hype Train will continue this year.  The Buffs got a LOT of extra viewers last year because of it, but I'm not so sure that's going to extend into 2024.
Is he still the had coach there?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2024, 07:39:06 PM
here is a look at Brett McMurphy’s College Football Playoff and bowl projections for 2024:

No. 1 Seed: Oregon Ducks

McMurphy has the Oregon Ducks earning the first overall seed in the College Football Playoff for the 2024 season. If they do so, it would be Oregon’s second time making it to the College Football Playoff. In the process, the Ducks would earn a first-round bye for the Playoff and be able to sit back and wait to see who their first opponent is going to be.

This comes in a season of transition for the Oregon program. The Ducks are going to be in their first season in the Big Ten after moving over from the Pac-12. So, it’s going to be a new-look schedule and a lot of travel to manage to get to this point.


No. 2 Seed: Alabama Crimson Tide

There is a lot of debate about Alabama moving forward. After all, with legendary head coach Nick Saban retiring and being replaced by Kalen DeBoer, the Crimson Tide have questions to answer. Those are questions that McMurphy, clearly, expects them to have answers for.

It’s not going to be easy to earn the second overall seed. To do so, it will likely take winning the SEC in a conference that expects to be tightly contested at the top. Still, Alabama does have the talent on paper to be able to do so.


No. 3 Seed: Miami Hurricanes

It’s been a challenging first couple of seasons for Miami under head coach Mario Cristobal. He has just a 12-13 record there and has found that the rebuild is taking longer than many outside of the program expected. Still, once again in 2024, expectations are high for the Hurricanes and McMurphy expects them to earn a bye in the College Football Playoff.

A big reason why so much is expected of Miami is how Cristobal was able to use the Transfer Portal. In particular, quarterback Cam Ward is expected to have a massive impact on the team this season. If he can, competing in the ACC and making the Playoff is a definite possibility.


No. 4 Seed: Utah Utes

Another team going through a transition that McMurphy is high on going into 2024 is Utah. The Utes, like the Ducks, are changing conferences. In Utah’s case, they’re leaving the Pac-12 to join the Big 12 for the 2024 season. It’s a conference Utah is expected to do well in.

Much of Utah’s success is going to go back to the health of quarterback Cam Rising. He had injury issues that sidelined him in 2023 and became a major issue for Utah’s offense. Having him back and at full strength is massive as it goes to making the College Football Playoff.


First round matchup: No. 12 Texas State at No. 5 Ohio State

The Group of Five is guaranteed at least one team in the College Football Playoff. That team will likely always end up with the 12 seed and, in this case, McMurphy is giving that spot to Texas State. The Bobcats are expected to have a good year but still are a bit of a darkhorse to earn that slot.

One team that isn’t a darkhorse is Ohio State. Many people are predicting the Buckeyes earn a bye in the Playoff. However, that’s not the case for McMurphy, who clearly has the Ducks winning the Big Ten over them to earn that spot instead. Still, Ohio State appears to be Playoff bound.


First round matchup: No. 11 Iowa at No. 6 Georgia

The Iowa Hawkeyes have been an interesting team in recent seasons. On defense and special teams, they’ve been among the best in the country. On offense, it’s fair to say they’ve struggled. Now, with a change at offensive coordinator, it will be interesting to see if they can make noise in the postseason.

Meanwhile, Georgia is considered one of the best all around teams in the country coming into this season. Even with a very difficult schedule, the Bulldogs are expecting to be one of the best teams in the country and make the College Football Playoff.


First round matchup: No. 10 Virginia Tech at No. 7 Ole Miss

One team that’s been a popular pick to catch people by surprise is Virginia Tech. The Hokies have shown growth in recent seasons and now seem poised to take a leap forward. Certainly, McMurphy is high on Virginia Tech, putting the Hokies in the Playoff.

A popular College Football Playoff pick has been Ole Miss. After adding extensively through the Transfer Portal, Ole Miss has a talented roster and seems poised to compete in the SEC. The question comes down to where they fall in a talented conference.


First round matchup: No. 9 Penn State at No. 8 LSU

In the end, McMurphy gave eight of his 12 College Football Playoff slots to teams from either the Big Ten or SEC. That includes Penn State and LSU, both of whom enter the season with expectations that they’ll at least compete for a Playoff slot.

For the Nittany Lions, they have a proven running game and defense. However, they’ll need to overcome assistant coach turnover and some questions about the consistency of the quarterback position. Meanwhile, LSU has a new quarterback and some questions to answer on the defensive side of the ball. However, both teams are clearly talented.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2024, 07:39:37 PM
The rest of Brett McMurphy’s predicted bowl matchups
Camellia Bowl, Dec. 14: Louisiana vs. Jacksonville State
Frisco Bowl, Dec. 17: Georgia Southern vs. Western Kentucky
Boca Raton Bowl, Dec. 18: Pitt vs. FAU
Los Angeles Bowl, Dec. 18: Oregon State vs. UNLV
New Orleans Bowl, Dec. 19: App State vs. Liberty
Cure Bowl, Dec. 20: James Madison vs. Toledo
Gasparilla Bowl, Dec. 20: Cincinnati vs. Tulane
Myrtle Beach Bowl, Dec. 23: Troy vs. UAB
Idaho Potato Bowl, Dec. 23: Miami (OH) vs. Wyoming
Hawaii Bowl, Dec. 24: Fresno State vs. UTSA
Detroit Bowl, Dec. 26: Rutgers vs. Central Michigan
Guaranteed Rate Bowl, Dec. 26: Maryland vs. Iowa State
68 Ventures Bowl, Dec. 26: Arkansas State vs. Western Michigan
Armed Forces Bowl, Dec. 27: Air Force vs. West Virginia
Birmingham Bowl, Dec. 27: Texas Tech vs. Boise State
Liberty Bowl, Dec. 27: UCF vs. Kentucky
Las Vegas Bowl, Dec. 27: Tennessee vs. Arizona
Fenway Bowl, Dec. 28: Syracuse vs. Memphis
Pinstripe Bowl, Dec. 28: NC State vs. Indiana
New Mexico Bowl, Dec. 28: San Jose State vs. Rice
Pop-Tarts Bowl, Dec. 28: Clemson vs. Oklahoma State
Arizona Bowl, Dec. 28: Bowling Green vs. Colorado State
Military Bowl, Dec. 28: SMU vs. USF
Alamo Bowl, Dec. 28: Kansas State vs. USC
Independence Bowl, Dec. 28: TCU vs. Washington State
Music City Bowl, Dec. 30: Texas A&M vs. Wisconsin
ReliaQuest Bowl, Dec. 31: Michigan vs. Missouri
Sun Bowl, Dec. 31: North Carolina vs. Cal
Citrus Bowl, Dec. 31: Texas vs. Nebraska
Texas Bowl, Dec. 31: Kansas vs. Oklahoma
Gator Bowl, Jan. 2: Auburn vs. Florida State
First Responder Bowl, Jan. 3: Illinois vs. Coastal Carolina
Duke’s Mayo Bowl, Jan. 3: Louisville vs. Minnesota
Bahamas Bowl, Jan. 4: Northern Illinois vs. South Alabama
Holiday Bowl, TBA: Notre Dame vs. Washington
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 19, 2024, 10:51:27 PM
What are the Vegas odds on Brett McMurphy correctly picking all the bowl match ups in this preseason release?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 19, 2024, 11:18:44 PM
$1 bet could get you $17 trillion
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 20, 2024, 06:13:49 AM
So, Oregon is gonna come into the B1G and dominate.

Sounds familiar.

Nebraska and Penn State fans will tell them all about it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on August 20, 2024, 06:26:47 AM
What are the Vegas odds on Brett McMurphy correctly picking all the bowl match ups in this preseason release? 
$1 bet could get you $17 trillion
Fearless is right, but god folks love these lists. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 20, 2024, 08:35:12 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Z8xMObv.png)

Listed as "Best Skyline in CFB" somewhere.  Meh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 20, 2024, 08:35:57 AM
So, Oregon is gonna come into the B1G and dominate.

Sounds familiar.

Nebraska and Penn State fans will tell them all about it.
Yeah that Fearless guy was really running his mouth back then, talking all about Nebraska domination and who the "real Big Red" was.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 20, 2024, 08:39:16 AM
I expect Oregon to "do well" this year, per rankings etc.  They might end up 10-2 or 9-3, etc.  I don't know that conference affiliation has some major impact on that relative to just pure schedule.  A close loss, or win, here and there, is all it takes for a really good team.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Temp430 on August 20, 2024, 08:40:44 AM
Urban Meyer says Oregon's OL is Big Ten ready.  Not so much for the other three left coast schools.

https://athlonsports.com/college/ducks-digest/urban-meyer-joins-cowherd-issues-a-warning-to-the-new-west-coast-big-ten-schools (https://athlonsports.com/college/ducks-digest/urban-meyer-joins-cowherd-issues-a-warning-to-the-new-west-coast-big-ten-schools)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 20, 2024, 08:46:33 AM
Yeah that Fearless guy was really running his mouth back then, talking all about Nebraska domination and who the "real Big Red" was.




The "real NU" was the one that really blew up in his face. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 20, 2024, 09:09:33 AM
Dan Lanning is a pretty solid coach, I think, and knows what is needed to compete with the Big Boys.  Whether he has that at this point is yet to be seen, and young coaches can "blow it" at times before they learn.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 20, 2024, 09:54:12 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7HPMhOY.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 10:19:34 AM
That is what consumer law company Whitney Law looked at when assigning different airports across the country the title of “most” and “least” stressful. Colorado’s Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE)’s 6.41 cancelations for every 100 departures was officially the highest number in the country for the period between January 2023 and 2024 while the average delay lasted 22.9 minutes.

https://www.thestreet.com/travel/airport-most-and-least-stressful (https://www.thestreet.com/travel/airport-most-and-least-stressful)

In terms of airports where one can go for a low-stress experience, southeastern Virginia’s Newport News/Williamsburg International (PHF) ranked the top in the country with a stress score of 78.92/100 (in this case, higher is better as it means there are fewer things causing you stress).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 11:00:52 AM
23 Best Wineries in Healdsburg (A Sommelier’s Guide)

https://acharmingescape.com/best-wineries-in-healdsburg/ (https://acharmingescape.com/best-wineries-in-healdsburg/)

Healdsburg, less than a 90 minute drive from San Francisco Bay Area, is a quaint little down in Sonoma County and a perfect base to explore the wine regions of Sonoma Coast. It is surrounded by some of the best wineries and is a great place to go wine tasting for wine lovers and casual wine enthusiasts.

Healdsburg wineries are on par with the best and beautiful wineries in Napa and Sonoma. As a Certified Sommelier, I had been visiting Healdsburg pretty much every year and love discovering new wineries and restaurants.

Whether you are planning a romantic getaway, a wine weekend or unique tastings such as olive oil, Healdsburg is a must visit!

From Ridge Vineyards and Trattore in Dry Creek Valley to the famous Jordan, Rodney Strong, Francis Coppola Wineries in Alexander Valley to J Vineyards and Flowers in Russian River, this blogpost highlights the best wineries in Healdsburg and insider tips!

Dry Creek Valley is renowned for its Zinfandel and Sauvignon Blanc. This region’s warm climate and hillside vineyards produce rich, flavorful wines. I discovered Dry Creek Valley accidentally when I ventured along to the west of Healdsburg and Hwy 101 and years later, I am so glad that I did.

The best wineries to visit in Dry Creek Valley are Ridge Vineyards – Lytton Springs, Ferrari-Carano Vineyards and Winery and Dry Creek Vineyard.

This is one of my favorite regions near Healdsburg and one of the best regions producing Zinfandels. The Zinfandels of Dry Creek Valley are on par with the Zins of the best wineries in Paso Robles.

The hospitality and personal attention given in the wineries of Dry Creek Valley is unmatched. I absolutely love the famous wine producers of this region as well as the small family owned wineries. It is surprising that not many people visit the Dry Creek Valley.

Russian River Valley is best known for its Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. The cool climate and fog influence create ideal conditions for smooth, elegant and crisp wines.

If you love cool climate Pinot Noirs, Russian River Valley is a must visit. Visit in the morning when the fog is lifting for a beautiful experience.

Russian River Valley is another one of my favorite regions. I like the wine styles produced here and the picturesque settings along the Russian River. The rolling vineyards and winding roads of Russian River valley are also very scenic.

The best wineries to visit are Williams Selyem Winery, J Vineyards & Winery and Korbel Champgne Cellar. Korbel is known for its historic champagne cellars and beautiful grounds.

Alexander Valley is famous for its Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. The warm climate and fertile soils produce robust, full-bodied reds. If you are a Cab lover but not much into the extremely bold versions of Napa, you will love the complex, rich Cabs of this region.

Take a tour of the valley’s vineyards to learn about the unique terroir and winemaking process. The best wineries to visit are Rodney Strong Vineyards, Silver Oak Alexander Valley and Francis Ford Coppola Winery.


Chalk Hill is known for its Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc. The volcanic soils and rolling hills contribute to the wines’ distinct minerality and brightness.

The best wineries to visit are Roth Estate Winery, known for its beautiful tasting room and exceptional wines, and Chalk Hill Estate Vineyards, offering a mix of wines with a focus on Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc.

Knights Valley is recognized for its powerful Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. The warm climate and volcanic soils enhance the depth and intensity of the wines. The best wineries to visit are Peter Michael Winery and Beringer Vineyards known for their highly sought after wines.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 22, 2024, 11:30:22 AM

Dry Creek Valley is renowned for its Zinfandel and Sauvignon Blanc. This region’s warm climate and hillside vineyards produce rich, flavorful wines. I discovered Dry Creek Valley accidentally when I ventured along to the west of Healdsburg and Hwy 101 and years later, I am so glad that I did.

The best wineries to visit in Dry Creek Valley are Ridge Vineyards – Lytton Springs, Ferrari-Carano Vineyards and Winery and Dry Creek Vineyard.

This is one of my favorite regions near Healdsburg and one of the best regions producing Zinfandels. The Zinfandels of Dry Creek Valley are on par with the Zins of the best wineries in Paso Robles.

The hospitality and personal attention given in the wineries of Dry Creek Valley is unmatched. I absolutely love the famous wine producers of this region as well as the small family owned wineries. It is surprising that not many people visit the Dry Creek Valley.
My favorite wines are the Zins from Dry Creek Valley. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:18:51 PM
Rochioli Vineyards and Winery (rochioliwinery.com) (https://www.rochioliwinery.com/)

This place does a good job.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 01:23:29 PM
thanks for the tip

taking the daughters out there in January

expensive??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:29:15 PM
Rochioli 2021 Estate Pinot Noir, Russian River Valley (brix26.com) (https://www.brix26.com/products/rochioli-2021-estate-pinot-noir-russian-river-valley?variant=40635195490386&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjww5u2BhDeARIsALBuLnOUj7FLtnQIoUDp_NBzmTSVJHYn-4ZjqdhTuSWrVwaCDOR0c0rF6dsaAifEEALw_wcB)

It's not open for walk ins, you need an insider.  Is it expensive?  Depends.  It's very good.

Korbel is pretty fun, it's a nice place and they do walk ins, or used to.  Their wines are "meh", but OK for the price.  They are allowed to called their stuff "California Champagne", which is an oxymoron of sorts.

I can recommend Passalacqua winery also, beautiful and off the beaten, a bit.  Healdsburg is quite nice.

Passalacqua Winery (https://passalacquawinery.com/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:30:41 PM
I mentioned elsewhere my wife didn't care for Sedona.  US places she does like are limited to:

Highlands, NC and
Healdsburg, CA and
Jerome, AZ and
Hilo, HI.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 01:32:01 PM
I mentioned elsewhere my wife didn't care for Sedona.  US places she does like are limited to:

Highlands, NC and
Healdsburg, CA and
Jerome, AZ and
Hilo, HI.




Atlanta, GA?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:35:57 PM
Yes, she likes where we live a lot.  I was thinking about places to visit.

There is a tiny town in Hawaii called Hawi Hawi that she likes a lot too.

And she ADORES Austin, TX and keeps wanting me to move there ....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 01:41:11 PM
Yes, she likes where we live a lot.  I was thinking about places to visit.

There is a tiny town in Hawaii called Hawi Hawi that she likes a lot too.

And she ADORES Austin, TX and keeps wanting me to move there ....
Ha!  I know that ain't true.  Y'all wandered around this town for days and never found a place to eat that impressed you even a little bit.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:44:21 PM
It was akin to our visit to New Orleans ... we were staying with a friend of my wife's and she claimed she KNEW where to dine.  I took a couple blind shots myself on my own and did as well.  The Lady drove us about town, for some obscure reason, and pointed out this and that, like an office building was somehow notable.  Yay.

I had better food at this tailgate I attended there once.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 01:54:24 PM
I think we did the catered taco buffet for that one?  Their food is good, but I really wish you'd been here for a game where I did BBQ.

For the Notre Dame game a few years later, I smoked SEVEN briskets and we still ran out before the line was finished.  I spent something like 1.5 hours slicing brisket that day, brutal, but man it turned out great.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 01:55:56 PM
I'm sold on Texas BBQ brisket because of Fox Bros.

Every brisket I'd had before that was dry and tasteless.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2024, 01:57:15 PM
I think we did the catered taco buffet for that one?  Their food is good, but I really wish you'd been here for a game where I did BBQ.

For the Notre Dame game a few years later, I smoked SEVEN briskets and we still ran out before the line was finished.  I spent something like 1.5 hours slicing brisket that day, brutal, but man it turned out great.
Yep.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 02:00:12 PM
Yep.
Bald Greg still remembers your generous donation that day, and the reciprocal agreement to show the Badgers game. :)

In fact we turned that into part of the business model, offering up extra TVs for "purchase" for specific games, for those attending the tailgate party.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 22, 2024, 02:17:14 PM
That's great to hear. I was happy to do it, particularly knowing your cause.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 22, 2024, 02:18:58 PM
Korbel is pretty fun, it's a nice place and they do walk ins, or used to.  Their wines are "meh", but OK for the price.  They are allowed to called their stuff "California Champagne", which is an oxymoron of sorts.
Definitely a great stop. Beautiful old property and building right on the Russian River. They also have a little deli that's nice if you build your visit about lunchtime. While nobody is super excited for Korbel champagne, it's a good place to go if you're there. It was the first time I've ever seen a red wine champagne. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 02:46:31 PM
I'll bet my daughters would enjoy it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 02:53:54 PM
Real Champagne is made from Pinot noir, Pinot meunier, and Chardonnay, so there. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on August 22, 2024, 03:24:29 PM
Real Champagne is made from Pinot noir, Pinot meunier, and Chardonnay, so there.
Agree. And many people (I doubt anyone here is guilty of this, of course) don't realize that white wines are made from red grapes. So it's not like a red champagne should necessarily be as notable as it was, but I've only seen one other of them anywhere else since. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 03:28:47 PM

Only sparkling red I've ever had was Lambrusco.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 03:33:45 PM
Riunite Lambrusco for me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 22, 2024, 03:36:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZXCdJ4Qig
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 03:43:00 PM
I have never heard of a red Champagne, though they do make a very few still wines from Champagne.  There are a fair number of sparkling reds out there now, often pinot noir based, but by no means all.

Basically, the whole point of making sparkling wine is to convert really crappy wine into something quaffable.

(https://i.imgur.com/YUE4Bji.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 03:44:12 PM
some folks seem to enjoy the bubbles
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 22, 2024, 03:47:15 PM
some folks seem to enjoy the bubbles
They do, but basically the wines grown in Champagne historically were crappy, and they discovered people would like them if they had bubbles - "I see stars!".

The district is too far north for reasonable maturation.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 22, 2024, 10:08:48 PM
The world’s most well-connected airport has been named

The ranking was created based on how many nonstop destinations are served by each hub – and the winner might not be a surprise

https://www.timeout.com/news/the-worlds-most-well-connected-airport-has-been-named-082124 (https://www.timeout.com/news/the-worlds-most-well-connected-airport-has-been-named-082124)

Based on data from the first two quarters of 2024, aviation analytics platform Cirium has compiled a list of the best-connected airports around the world based on the number of nonstop destinations they serve. Claiming the top spot is the same airport that recently reclaimed its crown as the best all-round airport on the planet – iGA Istanbul Airport!

That’s right – this hub serves a whopping 309 destinations, jetting ahead of every other airport on the list. Frankfurt serves 296 places, Paris Charles de Gaulle serves 282 and Amsterdam Schiphol serves 270.

Chicago’s O’Hare airport claims fifth place as it also serves 270 destinations, making it the most well-connected hub in North America, but you can check out the rest of the list below, which all serve at least 200 places respectively.

These are the world’s 20 most connected airports
Istanbul Airport
Frankfurt Airport
Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport
Chicago O’Hare Airport
Dubai International Airport
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
Shanghai Pudong International Airport
Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport
Rome Leonardo da Vinci Fiumicino Aiport
Denver International Airport
London Heathrow Airport
Jeddah King Abdulaziz International Airport
Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport
London Gatwick Airport
Munich Franz Joseph Strauss Airport
Barcelona El-Prat Airport
Beijing Capital International Airport
Chengdu Tianfu International Airport
Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 23, 2024, 08:00:11 AM
Oddly enough, it isn't easy to get a flight from here to IST unless you fly Turkish Airlines (they do one nonstop a day).  We have a nearly 6 hour layover in Paris because my wife wants to fly Delta.  Then coming back for some reason we go through DC, I don't know why, there are four flights a day from here direct to Paris.

I wanted to use Turkish, their price for a business class ticket isn't absurd.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 26, 2024, 08:20:45 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3PtDS0T.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 27, 2024, 10:09:30 AM
Florida Tops Education Rankings Again—But Governor DeSantis Isn’t Celebrating (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-tops-education-rankings-again-but-governor-desantis-isn-t-celebrating/ss-AA1pvKOB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2a59763673224dc2a7b6c41eb6dae9a9&ei=16)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 27, 2024, 05:51:29 PM
2 Georgia restaurants among the best new barbecue joints in the South – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta (wsbtv.com) (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/2-georgia-restaurants-among-best-new-barbecue-joints-south/3JYET55NWBAGRFIEH6KEXWHHVM/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem_manual&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawE7KV5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHYuYQfgLx_lTJ7SZNqlRFQ8ift02VODjqWDo00Jy5Eu9l21wtcDHjU3p_Q_aem_Tff-D2wotIEvLa_g3qJdkA)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 27, 2024, 06:01:35 PM
Here's the Southern Living article that the Atlanta piece is taken from.

https://www.southernliving.com/new-barbecue-restaurants-2024-8643046

#13 Leroy and Lewis in Austin, and #2 Barb's in nearby Lockhart, are legitimately delicious.  Easily among the top places in the state.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 28, 2024, 10:12:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0mhwTNb.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 28, 2024, 10:17:13 PM
The best Healdsburg wineries for wine tasting on a budget are David Coffaro Winery, Viszlay Vineyards, Longboard Vineyards, and Selby Winery.

1. David Coffaro Winery

David only recently began charging a tasting fee, as his was the last winery with free wine tasting in Healdsburg. That’s because, frankly, his wines sell out almost every year. David humbly believes when you make wine well, people will simply want it. And isn’t that how winemaking is supposed to be?

$10 Tasting Fee · Hours: 11:am to 4:pm, Thursdays – Tuesdays (closed Wednesdays) at 7485 Dry Creek Rd.

2. Viszlay Vineyards

There’s a spot where Dry Creek Valley, Russian River Valley, Alexander Valley, and Chalk Hill meet. And in the cradle of these four appellations lies Viszlay Vineyards. That’s where you’ll meet John Viszlay. Rarely does someone make a transition from commercial real estate to winemaking. However, John has done so, and now runs this family owned estate winery with his son and daughter.

$20 Tasting Fee · Hours: 11:am to 5:pm, Thursdays – Tuesdays (closed Wednesdays) at 929 Limerick Lane

3. Longboard Vineyards

Imagine if a seaside surf shack washed-up along the shores of the Russian River. Okay, LongBoard’s not actually on the Russian River, but you get the idea… it’s really casual here. Like, tasting at a beach bar with a cool display of surfboards hanging overhead kinda’ chill.

$20 Tasting Fee · Hours: 11:am to 6:pm, Thursdays – Tuesdays (closed Wednesdays) at 5 Fitch Street.

4. Selby Winery

Susie Selby started her viticultural career driving a fork lift for a winery. Later, she opened her own winery in 1994 with her father David. And you have to say, Susie has certainly given Healdsburg’s wine scene a woman’s touch. It’s impressive how Susie can offer such affordable wine tasting, given the selections of sparkling wine she serves.

If you’re looking for a tasting room that’s a petite pearl of opulence, think Selby Winery. Selby tasting salon only specializes in sparkling wines.

$20 Tasting Fee · Hours: 11:am to 530:pm, Open Every Day at 215 Center Street


Enjoying Healdsburg on a budget is much easier than most people think, and you don’t have to settle for cheap wine tasting. A great place to start, is to weave these top Healdsburg budget wineries into your itinerary! If you’d like to peruse our artistic culture, see our top places for art and wine. And, there’s a lot more fun, friendly, affordable (and free) activities and adventures to enjoy, which you can learn all about by seeing our article on “Fun Free Things To Do In Healdsburg”.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 28, 2024, 10:27:25 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/szNU072.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 28, 2024, 10:30:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3PtDS0T.png)

the QB's in this conference are hot garbage. 

Dillon Gabriel is a clear cut #1 and he's just....an above average college QB imo. But great fit for that system so he'll put up really good #'s. Drew Allar is far more talented than Dillon Gabriel- he's got all the tools to be #1 but I just have a feeling James Franklin will hold him back and #2 is probably a fair spot for him heading into the year.

Tyler Van Dyke a lit bit too high. Miller Moss or Will Rodgers should be 3rd and 4th in some order. TVD should probably be 5th, Will Howard 6th. Aidan Chiles is way too low. He's top 8 at worst imo. 

Dylan Raiola could wind up being the best guy on this list by the end of the year. Has the highest 'crootin profile of any of these QB's and he's got a cannon for an arm. 

Haven't seen Alex Orji throw a single pass in a real game yet- but with his speed and athleticism and running ability-if he just isn't a turnover machine as a passer ala Jeff Sims- he's better than Cade McNamara. Cade was never all that great and immobile as it gets, just a solid college QB but he seems to have lost something after dealing with injuries and missing most of the last 2 seasons in a row because all the reports about his camp performance has been...well....kinda bad.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 29, 2024, 12:17:18 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/b4EUuHW.png)

 "Levels of factual knowledge in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and are generally higher than levels in countries in other parts of the world." For instance, 44 percent of those surveyed in the European Union in 2005 said the sun revolved around the Earth.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 29, 2024, 03:51:53 PM
Forbes declares Atlanta the 'most educated city in America' | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/forbes-declares-atl-most-educated-city-america?fbclid=IwY2xjawE9sFhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdInxgNNZf7D9SNHiePPajyjUoHqC9j2jMrDKzytUGONNjyCZiOzNih-JA_aem_WH8m3vDyuo3Yt6G_GLyyog)

In a new report titled “What Are The Most Educated Cities In The U.S.? Top 100 Cities Ranked (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/student-resources/most-educated-cities/),” financial website Forbes Advisor anoints Atlanta the leading city in America when it comes to having an educated populace, from high school up to graduate-level degrees from universities.
The study applied to the City of Atlanta itself, and not the metro area. 
Atlanta was the only city in Georgia to make the top 100. (Texas and California, on the other hand, both count 10 cities on that list, and Florida has six.)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2024, 07:38:18 PM
Here are On3’s rankings of the top 15 NIL collectives in college sports:

Here are On3’s rankings of the top 15 NIL collectives in college sports:

1. 1870 Society & The Foundation (Ohio State)
Two years ago, speaking to businesses in Columbus, Ohio State head coach Ryan Day declared the Buckeyes needed $13 million annually to attract and retain top talent. Turns out the number is $20 million. Sources have confirmed to On3 and new athletic director Ross Bjork has spoken publicly about how Ohio State has spent $20 million on this year’s football roster.

The Foundation’s co-founder Brian Schottenstein told On3 that roughly 10 players are making over $1 million on this year’s roster.


The push to raise those dollars started after the Buckeyes dropped their third consecutive game against Michigan in November, with the majority of the $20 million coming from the donor-driven NIL collectives 1870 Society (for-profit) and The Foundation (registered nonprofit). Ohio State retained 11 draft-eligible players. Day and his staff went all-in on the transfer portal, adding Quinshon Judkins, Will Howard and Caleb Downs.

“I’m not surprised,” a competing NIL collective told On3 about Ohio State’s NIL mentality. “They got to a state of desperation and had to go all-in.”


2. Spyre Sports Group (Tennessee)
Spyre Sports Group has emerged as one of the most aggressive fundraising NIL entities in college football. They set the bar early in college football recruiting, signing five-star recruit Nico Iamaleava to a deal that could pay him $8 million by his junior year. The quarterback is now set to start this season as a sophomore.

The fundraising efforts haven’t slowed down. Tennessee touts the No. 6 recruiting class in the country according to the On3 Industry Team Recruiting Rankings and recently picked up the nation’s top-ranked offensive tackle, David Sanders Jr.


“They run a good operation,” an NIL collective executive director told On3. “They’re established and have a lot of money to spend on recruiting in football.”

Led by co-founders Hunter Baddour and James Clawson, The Volunteer Club has grown to 4,191 members, adding more than 1,400 in the last year. Spyre also told On3 it has now procured $30 million in NIL deals for Tennessee athletes since July 2021.


3. Texas One Fund (Texas)
Since bringing together five separate NIL entities to form the Texas One Fund in November 2022, the Texas Longhorns have given Steve Sarkisian every resource to compete. Viewed by peers as one of the wealthiest NIL collectives in the nation, sources tell On3 that it has roughly 60 football players under contract. That number doesn’t include deals it procures for athletes in the local business community. The Texas One Fund also has a working partnership with WME Sports, with a sales team based in Austin working hand-in-hand with the collective to support athletes.

With Patrick “Wheels” Smith running day-to-day operations, the collective secured a private jet agreement for Quinn Ewers with Nicholas Air. And the NIL collective recently announced a partnership with the Longhorn Foundation opening up loyalty points to supporters. Donations to Texas One Fund will earn donors five loyalty points per $100.


“They’re ready to adapt to whatever,” a source told On3. “They feel really comfortable where they’re at and already in conversations about what the House settlement could mean.”

4. Division Street (Oregon)
Kirby Smart called out the Oregon NIL war chest and Phil Knight during SEC media days this summer, only drawing more attention to the success the Ducks have found in the NIL Era. Oregon has been an NIL destination since the summer of 2021. Nike co-founder and Ducks’ booster Phil Knight is the co-founder of the Division Street NIL collective. Some of his top former lieutenants from Nike now run the operation, headlined by CEO Rosemary St. Clair, who was a VP/GM of Nike Women.


“They not only have cash, but they’re good people who care about the athletes,” a leading NIL collective leader told On3.

Highlighting Oregon’s unique NIL situation, the Ducks partnered with Division Street to release the “University of Oregon” Air Max 1 in March. The collective has previously dropped exclusive Air Jordan 8s, a Dunk Low and an Air Force 1 Low. Division Street has even established its own apparel line, Ducks of a Feather.


“There’s not a top-10 program in the nation that’s not funded and in a good position to compete, or they wouldn’t be a top-10 program,” Lanning said at Big Ten media days.

Division Street keeps a low profile, not needing to openly ask for donations or announce deals with athletes.


“It’s Phil Knight, Oregon has all the money it needs,” an NIL collective president told On3.

5. Canes Connection (Miami)
For the opening years of the NIL Era, John Ruiz was the most visible college sports booster in the country. Brash and aggressive, he picked fights with fans and announced details of lucrative NIL packages on social media. Those days are gone, with the CEO of LifeWallet and Cigarette Racing pulling back on his NIL investments.

Canes Connection has become the prominent collective in the space. Sources tell On3 Miami is working with over $15 million for this year’s football team. Cam Ward is believed to be one of the highest-paid transfer quarterbacks, and the Hurricanes surrounded him with a talent portal class. Mario Cristobal enters a critical year three at Miami, starting on Saturday at Florida.


The collective is operated by co-CEOs Zach Burr and Brian Goldmeier, who are successful fundraising professionals with more than 30 years of experience running business development firms in the Miami-Dade area.

“Nobody knows what’s going on down there because they want it like that,” a collective leader told On3. “But they clearly have the dollars to be aggressive in the transfer portal.”


6. The Grove Collective (Ole Miss)
In just two years, Walker Jones and The Grove Collective changed the tenor of NIL conversations around the Ole Miss campus. The NIL entity was playing major catch-up when Jones arrived in the fall of 2022.

Since then, Jones has emerged as a leader in the space. He was a Congressional witness last fall. He’s led the Grove Collection Week over the last two years, raising millions in a matter of days while working hand-in-hand with Ole Miss. Jones told On3 the collective now has more than 6,000 members.


“I hate to admit it, but Ole Miss’ marketing strategy is impressive,” a fellow SEC NIL collective said.

The Grove Collective is beginning to take steps to move from a booster-funded collective to a school-financed third-party agency ahead of revenue sharing. With the beginning of the 12-team College Football Playoff, Ole Miss heavily invested in this year’s roster, landing top transfer defensive tackle Walter Nolen and wide receiver Juice Wells, among others.


The Grove Collective currently has 320 athletes under contract along with 85 corporate sponsors.

“Ole Miss and The Grove Collective are moving in the same direction,” a source told On3. “That’s in large part because of Walker. From the jump, I’ve been impressed how they’ve maximized the portal.”

7. The Battle’s End (Florida State)
Ingram Smith delivered a promise when he founded The Battle’s End NIL collective for Florida State football in December 2022.


“I’m not going to tell you that I’m John Ruiz, and I have unlimited money,” the collective’s president said at the time. “But I will tell you that we can be as competitive as we want to be in this space.”

The third-party NIL collective is now in its second college football season supporting the Seminoles. From the beginning, Battle’s End has been one of the most aggressive in the NIL space, allocating significant dollars to roster retention and the transfer portal.


Now expanded to assisting sports like golf and potentially more, multiple sources have told On3 the collective will spend in the $18-million range for all sports in the 2024-25 academic year.

As Smith has emphasized since the beginning, NIL dollars make a difference during college football’s free agency. Especially in the portal, making a competitive financial offer can make all the difference in landing a game-changing player.


“Do you keep the players in the program that you want to keep in the program?” Smith told On3. “Our focus since day one has been retention. Candidly, we’ve never lost a player that we wholeheartedly didn’t want to lose, even be that to the NFL Draft within reality. Jared Verse wasn’t coming back for another year. We’ve kept guys that would have been fifth or sixth-rounders that have come back and turned into second, third-rounders.”

8. 1890 Nebraska (Nebraska)
A year ago, 1890 Nebraska sat at No. 19 in On3’s list of top NIL collectives. The Huskers had recently lost out on five-star quarterback Dylan Raiola to Georgia.

Plenty has changed in a year. When Nebraska kicks off its season on Saturday, Raiola will be the starting quarterback. He flipped his commitment to the Huskers last December, just before National Signing Day. Many view Raiola landing in Lincoln as a major NIL statement.

The collective received unprecedented support from Nebraska last month. Included in the partnership, donations made to 1890 will be eligible for Huskers Athletic Fund priority points and can be included in calculating Huskers Athletic Fund membership levels. The changes come with the arrival of new athletic director Troy Dannen, who has taken an all-in approach with NIL.


And with former Husker great Matt Davison partnering with Nebraska businessman Tom Peed and Shawn Peed, Nebraska can compete with most NIL budgets.

“They saw a guy who could turn around a program and invested in him,” a fellow Big Ten NIL collective leader told On3. “The institutional alignment and priority points have made them a gold standard.”


9. 502 Circle (Louisville)
Louisville has emerged as one of the most well-funded NIL collectives in the country over the past year. Led by former Cardinal Athletic Fund staff member Dan Furman, 502 Circle has between 125 and 150 athletes under contract. That includes the entire men’s and women’s basketball teams.

The 502 Circle collective has one of the most robust budgets in the country – sources indicate it to be in the $20 million range for football and men’s basketball combined.


The Cardinals landed the top-ranked football transfer class, and 502 Circle and NIL played a crucial role for new coach Pat Kelsey in reconstructing Louisville’s basketball roster. The rebuild resulted in the Cards’ basketball transfer class also ranking No. 1 in the country.

10. Every True Tiger (Missouri)
Missouri and Every True Tiger have set the standard for how NIL collectives will operate in the post-House settlement world. Most donor-funded collectives have opted to raise the majority of their dollars from boosters, but thanks to Missouri’s state law, Every True Tiger has been able to think outside the box.


Specifically, the state law allows the NIL collective to receive institutional funds for distribution to athletes. So Every True Tiger shifted from working as a donor-driven collective to a marketing agency, partnering with Missouri to have athletes promote the Tiger Scholarship Fund.

The structure is viewed as the next possible trend in the NIL collective world when revenue is paid to athletes. Every True Tiger has allowed Missouri to be aggressive this offseason, headlined by Oklahoma offensive lineman Cayden Green.


“Because of the leniency with the state law, the school and NIL collective have been aggressive,” a fellow SEC NIL collective leader said.

11. Texas Aggies United (Texas A&M)
Texas A&M’s NIL market has undergone major change in the last two years. One part hasn’t changed, though: The Aggies have deep pockets.


A large reason behind the early success was The Fund. Operating under the radar since the early days of NIL, no website was listed. Investors in The Fund told The Athletic in April 2022 they didn’t understand why boosters would want to advertise collectives. The Fund supposedly generated tens of millions of dollars.

The Fund officially became public in September 2022, operating under a new name: Texas Aggies United. The collective has over 50 football players and athletes from numerous varsity sports.


12. Yea Alabama (Alabama)
Yea Alabama has served as the primary NIL collective for the Crimson Tide since February 2023 when it launched. But the entity has only ramped up since Kalen DeBoer arrived in Tuscaloosa, with the former Washington head coach embracing the need to offer top NIL opportunities. Alabama cannot operate on the “Nick Saban discount” anymore, an often-used saying to describe why top recruits previously picked the school over other NIL packages.

The collective has focused on creating authentic NIL opportunities for athletes while ensuring it has the budget to retain and attract top talent. Entering Week One, Alabama has the nation’s No. 2 recruiting class in the 2025 cycle.


“I think I’ve been able to do a good job with that,” DeBoer said on a podcast this spring. “I think our staff will have the type of personalities and type of want to just continue to keep the main thing the main thing, and that’s coach these guys up. Understanding, also, that NIL is a part of it.”

13. Champions Circle (Michigan)
When Jim Harbaugh left Michigan for the NFL in late January, the 30-day transfer portal window opened. With the hire of Sherrone Moore and the Champions Circle NIL collective, the program was able to stave off any transfer portal losses.


“It was everything, we were vulnerable,” a source close to the situation said. “Look at what happened to Washington after the national title game, that could’ve happened.”

Michigan bounced back in the spring portal, restocking depth at a few positions. But Champions Circle hasn’t been limited to football. The collective threw its support behind new basketball coach Dusty May, who helped raise upwards of $3 million and met with top donors.


The NIL collective has over 130 athletes under NIL service agreements across football and men’s and women’s basketball. Led by Jared Wangler, the collective also manages Valiant Management, which has executed marketing deals for over 300 athletes across 28 sports.

14. The FUND (Notre Dame)
The Friends of the University of Notre Dame (FUND) has kept a low profile throughout the NIL Era, but sources have continued to indicate to On3 that it has the NIL dollars to stay competitive on the national level.


With new athletic director Pete Bevacqua now in charge, the Fighting Irish are more open to embracing new revenue opportunities. A registered nonprofit, the FUND supports all Notre Dame athletes with a focus on football.

The FUND has given Marcus Freeman what he needs to attract top talent in the portal, landing quarterbacks Sam Hartman and Riley Leonard in the last two portal cycles. Former quarterback Brady Quinn sits on the board and spearheaded the foundation of the collective.


15. Arkansas Edge (Arkansas)
Raising NIL dollars remains a challenge for Arkansas when it comes to football, but donors stepped up this offseason to land John Calipari. Part of the came with opening up their pockets to ensure the former Kentucky coach has the NIL dollars to spend on a roster.

Multiple sources have told On3 Calipari is working with an “open checkbook”  and will have “at least” $5 million annually in NIL funds to disperse. That number could grow to $8 million, sources have told On3.


That will place the Razorbacks at the top of the sport, where typical Power Four college basketball budgets range from $1 to $4 million. And it puts Arkansas Edge in the top echelon of NIL collectives.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2024, 09:09:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3OKP2jY.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 29, 2024, 09:19:33 PM
Here are On3’s rankings of the top 15 NIL collectives in college sports:

Here are On3’s rankings of the top 15 NIL collectives in college sports:

1. 1870 Society & The Foundation (Ohio State)
Two years ago, speaking to businesses in Columbus, Ohio State head coach Ryan Day declared the Buckeyes needed $13 million annually to attract and retain top talent. Turns out the number is $20 million. Sources have confirmed to On3 and new athletic director Ross Bjork has spoken publicly about how Ohio State has spent $20 million on this year’s football roster.

The Foundation’s co-founder Brian Schottenstein told On3 that roughly 10 players are making over $1 million on this year’s roster.


The push to raise those dollars started after the Buckeyes dropped their third consecutive game against Michigan in November, with the majority of the $20 million coming from the donor-driven NIL collectives 1870 Society (for-profit) and The Foundation (registered nonprofit). Ohio State retained 11 draft-eligible players. Day and his staff went all-in on the transfer portal, adding Quinshon Judkins, Will Howard and Caleb Downs.

“I’m not surprised,” a competing NIL collective told On3 about Ohio State’s NIL mentality. “They got to a state of desperation and had to go all-in.”


2. Spyre Sports Group (Tennessee)
Spyre Sports Group has emerged as one of the most aggressive fundraising NIL entities in college football. They set the bar early in college football recruiting, signing five-star recruit Nico Iamaleava to a deal that could pay him $8 million by his junior year. The quarterback is now set to start this season as a sophomore.

The fundraising efforts haven’t slowed down. Tennessee touts the No. 6 recruiting class in the country according to the On3 Industry Team Recruiting Rankings and recently picked up the nation’s top-ranked offensive tackle, David Sanders Jr.


“They run a good operation,” an NIL collective executive director told On3. “They’re established and have a lot of money to spend on recruiting in football.”

Led by co-founders Hunter Baddour and James Clawson, The Volunteer Club has grown to 4,191 members, adding more than 1,400 in the last year. Spyre also told On3 it has now procured $30 million in NIL deals for Tennessee athletes since July 2021.


3. Texas One Fund (Texas)
Since bringing together five separate NIL entities to form the Texas One Fund in November 2022, the Texas Longhorns have given Steve Sarkisian every resource to compete. Viewed by peers as one of the wealthiest NIL collectives in the nation, sources tell On3 that it has roughly 60 football players under contract. That number doesn’t include deals it procures for athletes in the local business community. The Texas One Fund also has a working partnership with WME Sports, with a sales team based in Austin working hand-in-hand with the collective to support athletes.

With Patrick “Wheels” Smith running day-to-day operations, the collective secured a private jet agreement for Quinn Ewers with Nicholas Air. And the NIL collective recently announced a partnership with the Longhorn Foundation opening up loyalty points to supporters. Donations to Texas One Fund will earn donors five loyalty points per $100.


“They’re ready to adapt to whatever,” a source told On3. “They feel really comfortable where they’re at and already in conversations about what the House settlement could mean.”

4. Division Street (Oregon)
Kirby Smart called out the Oregon NIL war chest and Phil Knight during SEC media days this summer, only drawing more attention to the success the Ducks have found in the NIL Era. Oregon has been an NIL destination since the summer of 2021. Nike co-founder and Ducks’ booster Phil Knight is the co-founder of the Division Street NIL collective. Some of his top former lieutenants from Nike now run the operation, headlined by CEO Rosemary St. Clair, who was a VP/GM of Nike Women.


“They not only have cash, but they’re good people who care about the athletes,” a leading NIL collective leader told On3.

Highlighting Oregon’s unique NIL situation, the Ducks partnered with Division Street to release the “University of Oregon” Air Max 1 in March. The collective has previously dropped exclusive Air Jordan 8s, a Dunk Low and an Air Force 1 Low. Division Street has even established its own apparel line, Ducks of a Feather.


“There’s not a top-10 program in the nation that’s not funded and in a good position to compete, or they wouldn’t be a top-10 program,” Lanning said at Big Ten media days.

Division Street keeps a low profile, not needing to openly ask for donations or announce deals with athletes.


“It’s Phil Knight, Oregon has all the money it needs,” an NIL collective president told On3.

5. Canes Connection (Miami)
For the opening years of the NIL Era, John Ruiz was the most visible college sports booster in the country. Brash and aggressive, he picked fights with fans and announced details of lucrative NIL packages on social media. Those days are gone, with the CEO of LifeWallet and Cigarette Racing pulling back on his NIL investments.

Canes Connection has become the prominent collective in the space. Sources tell On3 Miami is working with over $15 million for this year’s football team. Cam Ward is believed to be one of the highest-paid transfer quarterbacks, and the Hurricanes surrounded him with a talent portal class. Mario Cristobal enters a critical year three at Miami, starting on Saturday at Florida.


The collective is operated by co-CEOs Zach Burr and Brian Goldmeier, who are successful fundraising professionals with more than 30 years of experience running business development firms in the Miami-Dade area.

“Nobody knows what’s going on down there because they want it like that,” a collective leader told On3. “But they clearly have the dollars to be aggressive in the transfer portal.”


6. The Grove Collective (Ole Miss)
In just two years, Walker Jones and The Grove Collective changed the tenor of NIL conversations around the Ole Miss campus. The NIL entity was playing major catch-up when Jones arrived in the fall of 2022.

Since then, Jones has emerged as a leader in the space. He was a Congressional witness last fall. He’s led the Grove Collection Week over the last two years, raising millions in a matter of days while working hand-in-hand with Ole Miss. Jones told On3 the collective now has more than 6,000 members.


“I hate to admit it, but Ole Miss’ marketing strategy is impressive,” a fellow SEC NIL collective said.

The Grove Collective is beginning to take steps to move from a booster-funded collective to a school-financed third-party agency ahead of revenue sharing. With the beginning of the 12-team College Football Playoff, Ole Miss heavily invested in this year’s roster, landing top transfer defensive tackle Walter Nolen and wide receiver Juice Wells, among others.


The Grove Collective currently has 320 athletes under contract along with 85 corporate sponsors.

“Ole Miss and The Grove Collective are moving in the same direction,” a source told On3. “That’s in large part because of Walker. From the jump, I’ve been impressed how they’ve maximized the portal.”

7. The Battle’s End (Florida State)
Ingram Smith delivered a promise when he founded The Battle’s End NIL collective for Florida State football in December 2022.


“I’m not going to tell you that I’m John Ruiz, and I have unlimited money,” the collective’s president said at the time. “But I will tell you that we can be as competitive as we want to be in this space.”

The third-party NIL collective is now in its second college football season supporting the Seminoles. From the beginning, Battle’s End has been one of the most aggressive in the NIL space, allocating significant dollars to roster retention and the transfer portal.


Now expanded to assisting sports like golf and potentially more, multiple sources have told On3 the collective will spend in the $18-million range for all sports in the 2024-25 academic year.

As Smith has emphasized since the beginning, NIL dollars make a difference during college football’s free agency. Especially in the portal, making a competitive financial offer can make all the difference in landing a game-changing player.


“Do you keep the players in the program that you want to keep in the program?” Smith told On3. “Our focus since day one has been retention. Candidly, we’ve never lost a player that we wholeheartedly didn’t want to lose, even be that to the NFL Draft within reality. Jared Verse wasn’t coming back for another year. We’ve kept guys that would have been fifth or sixth-rounders that have come back and turned into second, third-rounders.”

8. 1890 Nebraska (Nebraska)
A year ago, 1890 Nebraska sat at No. 19 in On3’s list of top NIL collectives. The Huskers had recently lost out on five-star quarterback Dylan Raiola to Georgia.

Plenty has changed in a year. When Nebraska kicks off its season on Saturday, Raiola will be the starting quarterback. He flipped his commitment to the Huskers last December, just before National Signing Day. Many view Raiola landing in Lincoln as a major NIL statement.

The collective received unprecedented support from Nebraska last month. Included in the partnership, donations made to 1890 will be eligible for Huskers Athletic Fund priority points and can be included in calculating Huskers Athletic Fund membership levels. The changes come with the arrival of new athletic director Troy Dannen, who has taken an all-in approach with NIL.


And with former Husker great Matt Davison partnering with Nebraska businessman Tom Peed and Shawn Peed, Nebraska can compete with most NIL budgets.

“They saw a guy who could turn around a program and invested in him,” a fellow Big Ten NIL collective leader told On3. “The institutional alignment and priority points have made them a gold standard.”


9. 502 Circle (Louisville)
Louisville has emerged as one of the most well-funded NIL collectives in the country over the past year. Led by former Cardinal Athletic Fund staff member Dan Furman, 502 Circle has between 125 and 150 athletes under contract. That includes the entire men’s and women’s basketball teams.

The 502 Circle collective has one of the most robust budgets in the country – sources indicate it to be in the $20 million range for football and men’s basketball combined.


The Cardinals landed the top-ranked football transfer class, and 502 Circle and NIL played a crucial role for new coach Pat Kelsey in reconstructing Louisville’s basketball roster. The rebuild resulted in the Cards’ basketball transfer class also ranking No. 1 in the country.

10. Every True Tiger (Missouri)
Missouri and Every True Tiger have set the standard for how NIL collectives will operate in the post-House settlement world. Most donor-funded collectives have opted to raise the majority of their dollars from boosters, but thanks to Missouri’s state law, Every True Tiger has been able to think outside the box.


Specifically, the state law allows the NIL collective to receive institutional funds for distribution to athletes. So Every True Tiger shifted from working as a donor-driven collective to a marketing agency, partnering with Missouri to have athletes promote the Tiger Scholarship Fund.

The structure is viewed as the next possible trend in the NIL collective world when revenue is paid to athletes. Every True Tiger has allowed Missouri to be aggressive this offseason, headlined by Oklahoma offensive lineman Cayden Green.


“Because of the leniency with the state law, the school and NIL collective have been aggressive,” a fellow SEC NIL collective leader said.

11. Texas Aggies United (Texas A&M)
Texas A&M’s NIL market has undergone major change in the last two years. One part hasn’t changed, though: The Aggies have deep pockets.


A large reason behind the early success was The Fund. Operating under the radar since the early days of NIL, no website was listed. Investors in The Fund told The Athletic in April 2022 they didn’t understand why boosters would want to advertise collectives. The Fund supposedly generated tens of millions of dollars.

The Fund officially became public in September 2022, operating under a new name: Texas Aggies United. The collective has over 50 football players and athletes from numerous varsity sports.


12. Yea Alabama (Alabama)
Yea Alabama has served as the primary NIL collective for the Crimson Tide since February 2023 when it launched. But the entity has only ramped up since Kalen DeBoer arrived in Tuscaloosa, with the former Washington head coach embracing the need to offer top NIL opportunities. Alabama cannot operate on the “Nick Saban discount” anymore, an often-used saying to describe why top recruits previously picked the school over other NIL packages.

The collective has focused on creating authentic NIL opportunities for athletes while ensuring it has the budget to retain and attract top talent. Entering Week One, Alabama has the nation’s No. 2 recruiting class in the 2025 cycle.


“I think I’ve been able to do a good job with that,” DeBoer said on a podcast this spring. “I think our staff will have the type of personalities and type of want to just continue to keep the main thing the main thing, and that’s coach these guys up. Understanding, also, that NIL is a part of it.”

13. Champions Circle (Michigan)
When Jim Harbaugh left Michigan for the NFL in late January, the 30-day transfer portal window opened. With the hire of Sherrone Moore and the Champions Circle NIL collective, the program was able to stave off any transfer portal losses.


“It was everything, we were vulnerable,” a source close to the situation said. “Look at what happened to Washington after the national title game, that could’ve happened.”

Michigan bounced back in the spring portal, restocking depth at a few positions. But Champions Circle hasn’t been limited to football. The collective threw its support behind new basketball coach Dusty May, who helped raise upwards of $3 million and met with top donors.


The NIL collective has over 130 athletes under NIL service agreements across football and men’s and women’s basketball. Led by Jared Wangler, the collective also manages Valiant Management, which has executed marketing deals for over 300 athletes across 28 sports.

14. The FUND (Notre Dame)
The Friends of the University of Notre Dame (FUND) has kept a low profile throughout the NIL Era, but sources have continued to indicate to On3 that it has the NIL dollars to stay competitive on the national level.


With new athletic director Pete Bevacqua now in charge, the Fighting Irish are more open to embracing new revenue opportunities. A registered nonprofit, the FUND supports all Notre Dame athletes with a focus on football.

The FUND has given Marcus Freeman what he needs to attract top talent in the portal, landing quarterbacks Sam Hartman and Riley Leonard in the last two portal cycles. Former quarterback Brady Quinn sits on the board and spearheaded the foundation of the collective.


15. Arkansas Edge (Arkansas)
Raising NIL dollars remains a challenge for Arkansas when it comes to football, but donors stepped up this offseason to land John Calipari. Part of the came with opening up their pockets to ensure the former Kentucky coach has the NIL dollars to spend on a roster.

Multiple sources have told On3 Calipari is working with an “open checkbook”  and will have “at least” $5 million annually in NIL funds to disperse. That number could grow to $8 million, sources have told On3.


That will place the Razorbacks at the top of the sport, where typical Power Four college basketball budgets range from $1 to $4 million. And it puts Arkansas Edge in the top echelon of NIL collectives.
Michigan at 13th are seriously slacking. no excuse for them to ever be outside the top 5. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on August 29, 2024, 09:20:50 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3OKP2jY.jpeg)
all of those make complete sense except Sparty at #10. 

Colorado is a bit high, but I get it: Prime, Travis Hunter, the QB. Lot of eyeballs on those 3.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 29, 2024, 10:41:36 PM
Michigan at 13th are seriously slacking. no excuse for them to ever be outside the top 5.
Michigan is definitely behind where it could be, should be, and I'm sure will be-- but you have to keep in mind these are just rankings of the primary collective from each school.  Texas has multiple other collectives that don't fall under the Texas One Fund, and most other universities are similar.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2024, 10:52:30 PM
Texas above Oregon
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 29, 2024, 10:56:57 PM
Texas above Oregon
Phil Knight money doesn't necessarily even need to go through the collective.

But these rankings can only be guesswork anyway.  None of these collectives are revealing official numbers to On3.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2024, 10:58:08 PM
is there such a thing as an "official" number?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 29, 2024, 10:59:32 PM
is there such a thing as an "official" number?
No, of course not.  Not that anyone would ever reveal externally.

Which is why it's all guesswork.

Internally?  Sure, each group knows what its own numbers are.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 29, 2024, 11:01:28 PM
agreed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 30, 2024, 09:40:42 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/i6UtVS4.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 30, 2024, 09:57:49 AM
so, you're saying there's a 10% chance?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 30, 2024, 09:58:11 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4grEN18.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on August 30, 2024, 09:59:52 AM
You don't even live in Nebraska.  Where do the Iowa dirt farmers rank?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on August 30, 2024, 10:01:02 AM
apparently, they rank in the "no need to brag" area
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on August 30, 2024, 10:07:44 AM
Country Roads take me home!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on August 30, 2024, 01:19:28 PM

[th]
School
[/th]
[th]Enrollment[/th]
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/georgia-institute-of-technology-main-campus-139755.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Georgia Institute of Technology Main Campus (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/georgia-institute-of-technology-main-campus/)
Atlanta, GA
45,296
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/bg/transparent.png?fit=crop&w=60&h=60&q=90&txt-align=middle%2Ccenter&txt=K&txt-size=40&txt-font=Arial-Black&txt-color=ffc629&bg=2d2926)Kennesaw State University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/kennesaw-state-university/)
Kennesaw, GA
43,190
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/university-of-georgia-139959.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)University of Georgia (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/university-of-georgia/)
Athens, GA
40,607
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/georgia-state-university-139940.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Georgia State University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/georgia-state-university/)
Atlanta, GA
36,516
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/georgia-southern-university-139931.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Georgia Southern University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/georgia-southern-university/)
Statesboro, GA
25,481
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/kennesaw-state-university-140164.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Kennesaw State University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/kennesaw-state-university/)
Kennesaw, Georgia
24,176
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/university-of-north-georgia-482680.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)University of North Georgia (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/university-of-north-georgia/)
Dahlonega, GA
18,029
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/savannah-college-of-art-and-design-140951.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Savannah College of Art and Design (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/savannah-college-of-art-and-design/)
Savannah, GA
16,414
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/georgia-perimeter-college-244437.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Perimeter College (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/georgia-perimeter-college/)
Decatur, GA
15,456
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/emory-university-139658.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Emory University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/emory-university/)
Atlanta, GA
14,841
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/bg/transparent.png?fit=crop&w=60&h=60&q=90&txt-align=middle%2Ccenter&txt=W&txt-size=40&txt-font=Arial-Black&txt-color=ff1923&bg=12448f)University of West Georgia (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/university-of-west-georgia/)
Carrollton, GA
11,893
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/georgia-gwinnett-college-447689.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Georgia Gwinnett College (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/georgia-gwinnett-college/)
Lawrenceville, GA
11,030
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/valdosta-state-university-141264.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Valdosta State University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/valdosta-state-university/)
Valdosta, GA
10,209
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/bg/transparent.png?fit=crop&w=60&h=60&q=90&txt-align=middle%2Ccenter&txt=C&txt-size=40&txt-font=Arial-Black&txt-color=8b0804&bg=032e62)Central Georgia Technical College (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/central-georgia-technical-college/)
Warner Robins, GA
9,683
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/augusta-university-482149.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Augusta University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/augusta-university/)
Augusta, GA
9,140
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/chattahoochee-technical-college-140331.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Chattahoochee Technical College (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/chattahoochee-technical-college/)
Marietta, GA
9,017
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/orig/20210217/mercer-university-140447.jpg?auto=format&auto=compress&auto=true&w=60&h=60&fit=crop&q=40)Mercer University (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/mercer-university/)
Macon, GA
8,889
(https://collegesimply.imgix.net/bg/transparent.png?fit=crop&w=60&h=60&q=90&txt-align=middle%2Ccenter&txt=G&txt-size=40&txt-font=Arial-Black&txt-color=ffffff&bg=005c41)Gainesville State College (https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/georgia/gainesville-state-college/)
Oakwood, Georgia
8,568





Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 09, 2024, 01:16:38 PM
RANKED: The 30 Best Tailgating Schools In College Football (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ranked-the-30-best-tailgating-schools-in-college-football/ss-AA1qgps1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e53095929e15412d920f80f6e9e08570&ei=10#image=1)

UCLA? With what fans? Great setting, sure. Tailgate? Meh. They can keep their wine and cheese.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 10, 2024, 08:34:19 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/myhBdNH.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 10, 2024, 09:21:27 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UbjpfR3.png)

no linemen on the list
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 10, 2024, 04:26:28 PM
ESPN’s Football Power Index has received its latest updates following the second week of college football action and reranked the Big Ten.

At the top, Ohio State and Penn State remain the leaders, but from there, there has been quite a bit of shuffling, including Indiana making a huge jump, while Wisconsin continues to fall down the FPI rankings following a close win over South Dakota.

Overall, the Big Ten has three teams ranked inside the top ten, five inside the top 25, and eight inside the top 50, but where do the Huskers enter the mix? Scroll below to look at the FPI breakdown of the entire Big Ten Conference.

18
Northwestern Wildcats

W-L: 1-1

FPI: -1.1

Rank: 70

Trend: -3

Proj W-L: 4.4-7.6

Six Wins: 21.5%


17
Michigan State Spartans

W-L: 2-0

FPI: -0.1

Rank: 66

Trend: +13

Proj W-L: 5.6-6.4

Six Wins: 49.3%

16
Wisconsin Badgers

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 1.6

Rank: 63

Trend: -16

Proj W-L: 5.2-6.8

Six Wins: 41.6%

15
UCLA Bruins

W-L: 1-0

FPI: 2.0

Rank: 60

Trend: -8

Proj W-L: 4.5-7.5

Six Wins: 29.4%

14
Minnesota Golden Gophers

W-L: 1-1

FPI: 2.8

Rank: 56

Trend: +5

Proj W-L: 5.2-6.8

Six Wins: 41.6%

13
Illinois Fighting Illini

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 3.6

Rank: 52

Trend: +1

Proj W-L: 6.7-5.3

Six Wins: 76.0%

12
Rutgers Scarlet Knights

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 3.6

Rank: 51

Trend: +7

Proj W-L: 6.8-5.3

Six Wins: 76.1%

11
Purdue Boilermakers

W-L: 1-0

FPI: 3.8

Rank: 48

Trend:-2

Proj W-L: 5.0-7.0

Six Wins: 39.3%

10
Iowa Hawkeyes

W-L: 11

FPI: 5.8

Rank: 37

Trend: -5

Proj W-L: 6.4-5.6

Six Wins: 70.8%

9
Maryland Terrapins

W-L: 1-1

FPI: 6.9

Rank: 34

Trend: -8

Proj W-L: 6.3-5.7

Six Wins: 70.8%

8
Nebraska Cornhuskers

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 8.3

Rank: 28

Trend: +5

Proj W-L: 76-4.5

Six Wins: 89.5%

7
Indiana Hoosiers

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 8.8

Rank: 26

Trend: +47

Proj W-L: 7.9-4.2

Six Wins: 91.3%

6
Washington Huskies

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 9.7

Rank: 22

Trend: +3

Proj W-L: 7.2-4.8

Six Wins: 82.6%

5
Michigan Wolverines

W-L: 1-1

FPI: 11.8

Rank: 17

Trend: -3

Proj W-L: 7.2-4.9

Six Wins: 84.7%

4
Oregon Ducks

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 13.5

Rank: 13

Trend: -3

Proj W-L: 8.7-3.5

Six Wins: 96.3%

3
USC Trojans

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 16.5

Rank: 8

Trend: +7

Proj W-L: 9.2-3.1

Six Wins: 97.7%

2
Penn State Nittany Lions

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 22.0

Rank: 7

Trend: -2

Proj W-L: 9.7-2.6

Six Wins: 99.4%

1
Ohio State Buckeyes

W-L: 2-0

FPI: 26.0

Rank: 4

Trend: –

Proj W-L: 11.3-1.4

Win Out: 22.7%

Six Wins: 100%
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 10, 2024, 11:03:38 PM
A new study by Credit Secrets ranks Nebraska as the most financially literate state in the country.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 11, 2024, 10:00:22 AM
A new study by Credit Secrets ranks Nebraska as the most financially literate state in the country.
Dude, maybe you should move to Nebraska?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 11, 2024, 10:17:34 AM
He'd rather live in lowly Iowa.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 11, 2024, 10:18:44 AM
I might move to south of Lincoln someday

warmer there
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 11, 2024, 10:44:08 AM
I heard that Austin, TX is such a great place that Atlantians use a photo of it to encourage folks to visit Atlanta ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 11, 2024, 10:58:03 AM
it's very effective on the folks moving out of Chicago and San Fran
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 11, 2024, 11:02:54 AM
I THINK the urban growth here is folks coming from all over the place, including outside the US.  Georgia Tech is a big draw with a lot of wealthy Asian students who spend money rather freely.  And there is stuff around Tech now hiring young folks.  They want to live in an urban environment.  They don't have a down payment, but a lot of income.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 11, 2024, 04:37:50 PM
Welcome to Bleacher Report's Top 25 college football quarterback rankings.

These rankings will again be a weekly feature published each Tuesday morning throughout the 2024 season, with the goal of identifying the 25 best QBs in the country each week as the season unfolds.



25. Diego Pavia, Vanderbilt (2-0)

2024 Stats: 22-of-29, 273 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT; 155 rush yards, 2 TD

After leading Vanderbilt to an upset victory over Virginia Tech in Week 1, Pavia cruised on Saturday in a 55-0 blowout against Alcorn State. He threw for just 83 yards, but he also tallied a team-high 13 carries for 51 yards and a touchdown. Another tune-up game against Georgia State awaits next week before SEC play begins.

24. Shedeur Sanders, Colorado (1-1)

2024 Stats: 49-of-72, 689 yards, 5 TD, 2 INT; -13 rush yards

Through two games, Sanders has not looked like the same dynamic passing threat he was a year ago. He completed just 23-of-38 attempts and threw his second pick of the year in Colorado's loss to Nebraska. He then left the field with two minutes left in the game before throwing his offensive line under the bus in his post-game press conference. His lack of leadership will not be lost on NFL teams.

23. Rocco Becht, Iowa State (2-0)

2024 Stats: 43-of-61, 539 yards, 4 TD, 1 INT; 11 rush yards, 1 TD

Iowa State vaulted into the Top 25 with a comeback win against the rival Iowa Hawkeyes on Saturday; and in a wide-open Big 12 race, the Cyclones have a chance to make some serious noise. Becht threw for 3,120 yards and 23 touchdowns as a redshirt freshman last year, and he stands as one of the more underrated passers in the country.

22. Dylan Raiola, Nebraska (2-0)

2024 Stats: 42-of-57, 423 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT; 1 rush yard

Raiola completed 23-of-30 passes for 185 yards and a touchdown while clearly outplaying Shedeur Sanders in a 28-10 win over Colorado, and now Nebraska is ranked No 23 in the latest AP poll. The Cornhuskers are taking it slow, evidenced by his middling 7.4 yards per attempt, but he has looked the part through two weeks as a true freshman starter.

21. Josh Hoover, TCU (2-0)

2024 Stats: 48-of-67, 620 yards, 4 TD, 0 INT; -3 rush yards, 1 TD

Hoover took over as TCU's starting quarterback midway through the 2023 season after Chandler Morris suffered a knee injury. He finished the season on a high note, racking up 756 passing yards with six passing touchdowns and two rushing touchdowns in his final two games. He has picked up right where he left off with a solid start to the 2024 campaign.


20. Brendan Sorsby, Cincinnati (1-1)

Stats: 44-of-69, 681 yards, 5 TD, 0 INT; 0 rush yards, 2 TD

Sorsby transferred to Cincinnati after throwing for 1,587 yards and 15 touchdowns at Indiana a year ago, and while the Bearcats suffered a 28-27 loss against Pitt on Saturday, he is still off to a strong individual start. The former 3-star recruit threw for 298 yards and three touchdowns in the loss.

19. Nico Iamaleava, Tennessee (2-0)

Stats: 38-of-51, 525 yards, 5 TD, 2 INT; 71 rush yards, 1 TD

The Nico Iamaleava era is off to a 2-0 start, and while he threw a pair of interceptions against NC State on Saturday, the Volunteers still came away with a 51-10 victory over a ranked Wolfpack team. He is one of 18 qualified quarterbacks averaging more than 10 yards per pass attempt, so he has shown some big-play ability despite his inexperience.

18. Miller Moss, USC (2-0)

Stats: 48-of-66, 607 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT; -1 rush yards

Moss has the fewest touchdown passes of anyone on this list, but he has completed 72.7 percent of his throws while leading the Trojans to a huge Week 1 win over LSU and a 48-0 blowout against Utah State. He has completed a pass to 15 different receivers through two games.

17. Drew Allar, Penn State (2-0)

Stats: 24-of-37, 420 yards, 5 TD, 1 INT; 51 rush yards, 1 TD

A spike from 6.8 to 11.4 yards per attempt speaks to the expanded role Allar is filling in the Nittany Lions offense after serving as a highly efficient game manager a year ago. He showed good composure on Saturday leading Penn State to a comeback victory over Bowling Green after trailing 17-7 early and 24-20 at halftime.

16. Tyler Shough, Louisville (2-0)

Stats: 39-of-57, 581 yards, 6 TD, 0 INT; 50 rush yards

After three years at Oregon and three years at Texas Tech, Shough is delivering a long-awaited breakout season under center at Louisville. The 24-year-old tossed four touchdowns passes against Austin Peay in Week 1 and tallied 349 yards and two touchdowns in a 49-14 victory over Jacksonville State on Saturday.

15. Chandler Morris, North Texas (2-0)

Stats: 58-of-85, 737 yards, 7 TD, 3 INT; 10 rush yards, 2 TD

Morris had 1,419 yards and 11 touchdowns through his first five games last year before suffering a sprained MCL against Iowa State that limited him to just four pass attempts the rest of the way. Josh Hoover staked claim to the starting job in his absence, and he transferred to North Texas this offseason where he ranks second in the nation with 737 passing yards, though he threw three picks against Stephen F. Austin on Saturday.

14. John Mateer, Washington State (2-0)

Stats: 20-of-36, 467 yards, 6 TD, 1 INT; 252 rush yards, 2 TD

After throwing five touchdown passes in Washington State's opener, Mateer did the bulk of his damage with his legs in a 37-16 win over Texas Tech, rushing for 197 yards and a touchdown on 21 carries. He now ranks 11th in the nation and leads all quarterbacks with 252 rushing yards, and he is averaging a staggering 11.0 yards per carry.

13. Will Rogers, Washington (2-0)

Stats: 41-of-52, 511 yards, 5 TD, 0 INT; -23 rush yards

Rogers threw for 12,315 yards and 94 touchdowns in four years at Mississippi State, and now he is tasked with filling the extremely productive shoes of Michael Penix Jr. under center for the Huskies. His 78.8 percent completion rate trails only Jaxson Dart (87.0%) and Dillon Gabriel (84.3%) among QBs who have attempted at least 50 passes.

12. Cade Klubnik, Clemson (1-1)

Stats: 42-of-55, 520 yards, 5 TD, 1 INT; -12 rush yards, 2 TD

After a lackluster performance against Georgia in a season-opening loss, Klubnik was nearly perfect against a good Appalachian State team on Saturday, completing 24-of-26 attempts for 378 yards and five touchdowns. He also added two more scores on the ground in a 66-20 victory, and the Tigers will now look to prove they still belong in the national picture.

11. Cameron Rising, Utah (2-0)

Stats: 18-of-29, 346 yards, 7 TD, 0 INT; 46 rush yards

In his first game action since the 2022 Rose Bowl after injuries erased his 2023 season, Rising threw for 254 yards and five touchdowns in a blowout win over Southern Utah. His second game back under center was cut short by a hand injury that sent him to the sidelines late in the second quarter, but the issue is not viewed as serious.

10. Thomas Castellanos, Boston College (2-0)

Stats: 19-of-26, 340 yards, 6 TD, 0 INT; 81 rush yards, 1 TD

Only Heisman Trophy winner Jayden Daniels had more rushing yards among quarterbacks last season than Castellanos, who finished with 1,113 yards and 13 touchdowns on the ground. However, he completed just 57.3 percent of his throws for 2,248 yards with 15 touchdowns and 14 interceptions. He has made clear strides as a passer this season en route to a 2-0 start, and BC checked in at No. 24 in the latest AP poll.

9. Ethan Hampton, Northern Illinois (2-0)

Stats: 28-of-39, 526 yards, 6 TD, 0 INT; 29 rush yards

Northern Illinois taking down No. 5 Notre Dame as 28-point underdogs may well be the upset of the 2024 season. Now a Huskies team that was picked to finish third in the preseason MAC poll has suddenly become nationally relevant, earning the No. 25 spot in the latest AP poll. Hampton completed 10 of 19 passes for 198 yards with one touchdown and zero picks in the upset, building on a terrific Week 1 performance.

8. Garrett Nussmeier, LSU (1-1)

Stats: 57-of-76, 610 yards, 8 TD, 1 INT; 13 rush yards

A 4-star recruit and the No. 14 quarterback in the 2021 class, Nussmeier paid his dues sitting behind Max Johnson for one year and Jayden Daniels for two, and he is now making the most of his first opportunity as the unquestioned starter. He completed 30 of 39 passes for 308 yards with two touchdowns and one interception in the Week 1 loss to USC, then racked up 302 yards and six touchdowns in a blowout against Nicholls State on Saturday.

7. Dillon Gabriel, Oregon (2-0)

Stats: 59-of-70, 623 yards, 4 TD, 0 INT; -38 rush yards, 1 TD

Gabriel has been extremely efficient in his first season at Oregon, completing 84.3 percent of his throws, but he hasn't exactly been lighting up the scoreboard. After a less-than-dominant 24-14 win over Idaho in Week 1, the Ducks needed a field goal as time expired to pull out a 37-34 victory over Boise State on Saturday night. Gabriel threw for 243 yards and two touchdowns against a good Broncos team.

6. Carson Beck, Georgia (2-0)

Stats: 41-of-58, 520 yards, 7 TD, 0 INT; 37 rush yards

Beck hung 242 yards and five touchdowns on a completely overmatched Tennessee Tech team, playing into the third quarter before giving way to Gunnar Stockton with the game well in hand. A road game against Kentucky is up next for the nation's No. 1 team, followed by a bye week before a huge Week 5 matchup at Alabama.

5. Cam Ward, Miami

Stats: 46-of-61, 689 yards, 6 TD, 1 INT; 46 rush yards, 1 TD

Cam Ward tested the NFL draft waters after throwing for 3,736 yards and 25 touchdowns last year at Washington State, but he ultimately returned to the transfer portal and landed at the University of Miami.

The 22-year-old threw for 385 yards and three touchdowns in a Week 1 victory on the road against Florida, then padded his stats on Saturday with a 304-yard, three-touchdown showing against an overmatched Florida A&M.

With Florida State starting 0-2 and Clemson, NC State and Virginia Tech all suffering early losses, the Hurricanes are suddenly the highest-ranked team in the ACC at No. 10 in the latest AP poll.

4. Kyle McCord, Syracuse

Stats: 59-of-85, 735 yards, 8 TD, 1 INT; 9 rush yards

The Kyle McCord Revenge Tour is in full swing after he spent the 2023 season drawing the ire of Ohio State fans, despite throwing for 3,170 yards with 24 touchdowns and six interceptions.

The former 5-star recruit threw for 381 yards and four touchdowns, leading Syracuse to a 31-28 victory over No. 23 Georgia Tech for the Orange's first win over a ranked opponent since NC State in October 2022.

McCord ranks third in the nation with 735 passing yards, trailing only Jaxson Dart (795) and Chandler Morris (737), and his eight passing touchdowns are tied with LSU's Garrett Nussmeier for the FBS lead.

3. Jalen Milroe, Alabama

Stats: 24-of-36, 399 yards, 5 TD, 0 INT; 81 rush yards, 4 TD

Jalen Milroe is tied for the lead among all quarterbacks with nine total touchdowns in his ledger through the first two weeks, and he has done it with just 36 pass attempts and 22 carries.

The Crimson Tide needed every bit of his production in a closer-than-expected game against South Florida on Saturday. The score was 21-16 into the fourth quarter before Alabama ripped off 21 unanswered points for a lopsided 42-16 final score.

Milroe finished with 199 passing yards and four total touchdowns in the victory, and now it's on to a tough road matchup against Wisconsin this weekend.

2. Quinn Ewers, Texas

Stats: 44-of-63, 506 yards, 6 TD, 1 INT; -6 rush yards

Quinn Ewers added a marquee win to his resume on Saturday while leading the Texas Longhorns to a 31-12 blowout on the road against No. 10 Michigan.

The 21-year-old threw for 246 yards with three touchdowns and zero interceptions, and the Longhorns were in complete control of a game many viewed as a potential matchup of two College Football Playoff-bound teams heading into the weekend.

Up next will be a chance to pad that stat line with home games against UTSA and Louisiana-Monroe over the next two weeks before SEC play gets underway.

1. Jaxson Dart, Ole Miss

Stats: 47-of-54, 795 yards, 6 TD, 0 INT; 19 rush yards, 2 TD

The above numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt since they came against Furman and Middle Tennessee State, but Jaxson Dart has been nearly perfect to begin the 2024 season.

He was 24 of 27 passing for 377 yards and a touchdown on Saturday, also adding his second rushing touchdown of the season, and the Rebels have outscored their opponents by a staggering 128-3 margin through two games.

A road game against Wake Forest will provide a much tougher text this coming weekend, followed by Georgia Southern, Kentucky and South Carolina before the Rebels finally play their first game against a ranked opponent at LSU on Oct. 12.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 11, 2024, 08:30:58 PM
I THINK the urban growth here is folks coming from all over the place, including outside the US.  Georgia Tech is a big draw with a lot of wealthy Asian students who spend money rather freely.  And there is stuff around Tech now hiring young folks.  They want to live in an urban environment.  They don't have a down payment, but a lot of income.
The UCLA campus looks like an Asian modeling agency.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 11, 2024, 09:55:31 PM
A new study by Credit Secrets ranks Nebraska as the most financially literate state in the country.
(https://i.imgur.com/K20ib0h.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 11, 2024, 09:55:56 PM
lowly Iowa in the top 10
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 12, 2024, 08:28:59 AM
Maybe you can explain what financially literate means.

Does it mean the state government? The people who live in the state?

I left a state where the government is not literate financially. And clearly the people who live there are not financially literate because they willingly vote for the fools who have bankrupted the state.

No way is Illinois #25. In anything.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 12, 2024, 08:37:10 AM
Cali didn't finish last
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 12, 2024, 08:38:11 AM
I didn't read the article

perhaps one factor is credit card debt
It would be for me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 12, 2024, 08:38:30 AM
In what? Need context.

For weather, SoCal beats anything in the US.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 12, 2024, 08:41:27 AM
most financially literate states
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 12, 2024, 08:44:05 AM
In what? Need context.

For weather, SoCal beats anything in the US.
Nah too cold.  I'll take Hawaii.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 12, 2024, 08:51:18 AM
Hawaii actually gets "cold" at night. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 12, 2024, 11:21:39 AM
Maybe you can explain what financially literate means.

Does it mean the state government? The people who live in the state?

I left a state where the government is not literate financially. And clearly the people who live there are not financially literate because they willingly vote for the fools who have bankrupted the state.

No way is Illinois #25. In anything.


It's individuals. 

It's based on, per their methodology: A High-School Financial Literacy Grade, FICO scores, Per Capita Personal Consumption Expenditure vs Income Ratio, Unbanked Household Percentage, Households with Nonbank Personal Loans, Financial Institutions per Capita, Predatory Lenders per Capita and Educational Attainment. 

Will not vouch for its efficacy, but will say the postabove does make me sad for the state of conversation in our times. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 12, 2024, 12:27:04 PM
Hawaii actually gets "cold" at night.
I mean, sort of?  But it doesn't get California cold...

(https://i.imgur.com/rIc8IWp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZFe78e0.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 12, 2024, 02:42:56 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XClwMvr.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2024, 11:48:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/okvv34U.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 19, 2024, 12:09:57 PM
Oregon has 200 uniforms. They suck.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on September 19, 2024, 12:18:53 PM
How can you rate what uniform is Oregons?  They have some good ones, some bad ones, some forgettable ones
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2024, 12:31:45 PM
Looks to me like she's rating the "green and yellow" one pictured.  Which isn't bad, as far as Oregon's unis go, but I certainly wouldn't list it in the Top 10.  Or Top 50.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 19, 2024, 01:08:48 PM
My favorite uniforms are all whites some teams use on the road, including mine.

Texas stormtroopers and Penn State are tops.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2024, 01:16:18 PM
Yeah I love our road stormtrooper uniforms.  It's been a part of some of my favorite Longhorn wins of all time.

2004/5: Rose Bowl against Michigan
2005/6: @Ohio State, Rose Bowl against USC
2023/4: @Alabama
2024/5: @Michigan
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 19, 2024, 01:18:23 PM
I hope the whites serve Wisconsin in the same fashion next week, at USC.

A man can dream.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 19, 2024, 10:51:57 PM
my team can wear a gunny sack if they win the game

wearing fancy pants and losing always sucks
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 19, 2024, 11:03:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7F3X0G3.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 19, 2024, 11:42:37 PM
Ryan Wingo has been such a great get for Texas, that was a recruiting battle against his home-state Mizzou Tigers and they very nearly got him.  I'm glad they didn't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 10:09:54 AM
Barney Jr. was a versatile performer for Coach Mike Manasco at Miami Palmetto High School. A two-way player for the Panthers, he saw time on offense at quarterback, running back and wide receiver.

Barney was rated as a four-star recruit by Rivals, which ranked him among the top 60 wide receivers in the country. He was also ranked among the nation’s top 25 athletes by 247Sports.
_____________________________________

not sure how Rhule got this kid outa Florida


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 11:50:57 AM
Klatt once again called out AP Poll voters on The Joel Klatt Show this week, even going a step further with his comments. Klatt is particularly frustrated with Nebraska being ranked No. 22.

“The AP voters have done a complete disservice to Nebraska. The AP Poll is terrible. It is garbage,” Joel Klatt said. “Stop looking at the AP Poll. They have no idea what they’re doing. They move teams up and down just based on their preconceived notions and never adjust their preconceived notions.”

He admitted that his own rankings aren’t perfect, but he feels that they are a lot better than the AP Poll rankings.

“Now is mine any better? I like to think so, because I’ll at least adjust in a big way when I see some team really struggle, really dominate. I’ll move teams quite a significant gap,” Klatt said. “Meanwhile the AP Poll, like, come on. Nebraska is far better than the No. 22 team in the country.”

As for his rankings heading into Week 4, Joel Klatt revealed his top 10 earlier this week. Like the AP Poll, Klatt has Texas at No. 1. However, that’s about the only thing his rankings have in common with the AP’s.

Klatt has Ohio State at No. 2 and Miami at No. 3, followed by Tennessee and Georgia to round out the top 5.

The AP Poll has Georgia at No. 2, followed by Ohio State, Alabama and Ole Miss.

For spots 6-10, Klatt has Alabama at No. 6, followed by USC, Ole Miss, Penn State and Oregon.

The AP Poll has Tennessee at No. 6, with Missouri, Miami, Oregon and Penn State rounding out the top 10.

Klatt is clearly much higher on Miami than the AP Poll is, and he is also not as big of a believer in Georgia as the AP rankings.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 20, 2024, 12:19:30 PM
A lot of folks here on the B1G board seem to dislike Klatt, whereas I find him to be among the better college football talking heads/analysts.

At the very least he forms his own opinions and is willing not only to buck the trends, but call others out when they're engaging in lemming/sheeple behaviors.

He's still one of the only guys to ever call out the SEC for its schedule and poll manipulation with their 8-game conference schedule and FCS cupcake weekend.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 12:37:52 PM
he's OK, for a buff
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 20, 2024, 12:55:38 PM
I like Klatt. It's his partner that makes my skin crawl.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 20, 2024, 03:45:45 PM
How do you rank the months?

Factor in weather, holidays, sports in season, along with any other criteria that you deem relevant.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 20, 2024, 03:54:26 PM
How do you rank the months?

Factor in weather, holidays, sports in season, along with any other criteria that you deem relevant.
I'll go tiers. But only consecutive months (so spring/fall can't be together despite similar weather):



Obv SoCal weather plays into it. No real winter. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 20, 2024, 03:56:06 PM
How do you rank the months?

Factor in weather, holidays, sports in season, along with any other criteria that you deem relevant.
November
October
September
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on September 20, 2024, 04:51:41 PM
Sept
Oct
Nov
June 
July
May
Dec
April
August
January 
February 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 20, 2024, 04:55:12 PM
I like Klatt. It's his partner that makes my skin crawl.
I’m not a fan of the tone of his voice, and I don’t feel like he makes a ton of super salient points. But I have to admit I am more annoyed at his sort of sports radio blowhard stuff outside of games.

that said, I’m pretty lukewarm on most commentators unless they provide some interesting schematic stuff or are just fun.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on September 20, 2024, 04:56:50 PM
Barney Jr. was a versatile performer for Coach Mike Manasco at Miami Palmetto High School. A two-way player for the Panthers, he saw time on offense at quarterback, running back and wide receiver.

Barney was rated as a four-star recruit by Rivals, which ranked him among the top 60 wide receivers in the country. He was also ranked among the nation’s top 25 athletes by 247Sports.
_____________________________________

not sure how Rhule got this kid outa Florida



Money/him not being as high on other school’s boards?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 06:11:16 PM
guessin he was a bit under the radar playin QB his senior season

the kid is fast!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 06:13:01 PM
How do you rank the months?

Factor in weather, holidays, sports in season, along with any other criteria that you deem relevant.
Oct #1 - football, baseball, hunting season, best weather in NW Iowa





Febr #12 - freezing cold!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2024, 09:36:49 PM


He's still one of the only guys to ever call out the SEC for its schedule and poll manipulation with their 8-game conference schedule and FCS cupcake weekend.
Manipulation?

Fer fuck sake.  If there's not a rule saying you have to play 9, then what are you bitching about?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 20, 2024, 09:38:21 PM
How do you rank the months?

Factor in weather, holidays, sports in season, along with any other criteria that you deem relevant.
October is easily #1.
Cooler weather.
Football season.
Baseball post-season.
Halloween.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 20, 2024, 09:47:43 PM
Manipulation?

Fer fuck sake.  If there's not a rule saying you have to play 9, then what are you bitching about? 
doesn't need to be a rule to make it the right thing to do
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on September 20, 2024, 10:18:05 PM
Manipulation?

Fer fuck sake.  If there's not a rule saying you have to play 9, then what are you bitching about? 
Nobody said it was illegal.  It's absolutely something the SEC has done, and it's worked well.  Why are you such a sandy vagina about it?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 22, 2024, 10:26:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/KB8Uy8I.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 22, 2024, 10:33:54 PM
Nobody said it was illegal.  It's absolutely something the SEC has done, and it's worked well.  Why are you such a sandy vagina about it?
I'm not.  Big Tenners are.  Ask them why THEY'RE such a sandy vagina about it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 22, 2024, 10:35:25 PM
doesn't need to be a rule to make it the right thing to do
What makes it the right thing to do?  Besides "because."
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 23, 2024, 07:56:30 AM
Because ..............

 the fans might appreciate a real contest

the players might appreciate some real competition

the networks would pay more for real content

the greedy programs would like more $$$ from the networks
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 23, 2024, 07:59:41 AM
I suspect most of us here would favor a 9 game conference slate, I would, SO LONG AS folks retained some decent OOC matches as well.  The B1G mostly has done this.

The SEC often schedules three pastries, because they can.  They might still do that.

The key, for me, is to play 10 decent opponents out of 12 each season.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on September 23, 2024, 11:17:45 AM
I never honestly gave it much real thought until I saw all the hub-bub about it on this board.  I just accepted that this is the way the SEC operates, very successfully I might add.  Maybe the conference that has won like 90% of the national titles this decade knows a thing or two about scheduling?  I honestly never cared.  I don't even mind going to the late season "gimmie" games, because the crowds are light and the tickets cheap.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 23, 2024, 11:22:33 AM
Teams should refer to UNC and ND for scheduling advice.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on September 24, 2024, 05:07:43 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/6CmXkZl.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on September 27, 2024, 08:34:29 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8bSPUCq.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 04, 2024, 10:10:50 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/RbudcNC.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 04, 2024, 12:27:17 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QMyyjKY.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2024, 09:29:55 AM
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/entertainment/dining/2024/10/01/5-restaurants-compete-to-be-named-best-breaded-pork-tenderloin-in-iowa/75386162007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFuHiNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeHCP1mIEKPjh_eNfJckLaMZJI06WjUCXhKqIe-2pBXglUrU6cfLmV0SXQ_aem_Rh3C_qEffjhzNhc2LB5Usw (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/entertainment/dining/2024/10/01/5-restaurants-compete-to-be-named-best-breaded-pork-tenderloin-in-iowa/75386162007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFuHiNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHeHCP1mIEKPjh_eNfJckLaMZJI06WjUCXhKqIe-2pBXglUrU6cfLmV0SXQ_aem_Rh3C_qEffjhzNhc2LB5Usw)

Iowa is about to find out who has the best breaded pork tenderloin in the state, and this time around, two restaurants from the same town made the finals.

The Iowa Pork Producers Association just released five finalists for the annual award. This 22-year tradition took representatives from the pork producers across the state on a quest for the best breaded pork tenderloin, a variation on the schnitzel that's served on a bun and has become the unofficial sandwich of Iowa.


This year, five restaurants across the state compete for the title.

Bronson Bar — Bronson
Dairy Sweet — Dunlap
Ruby’s Pub & Grill — Stuart
The Blind Pig — Monticello
The Market at the Tap — Monticello
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2024, 04:38:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CQp6dMk.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 07, 2024, 02:14:19 PM
Through a renewed focus on academic excellence and student success, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln made significant strides in the 2025 U.S. News & World Report college ranking.

Announced Sept. 24, the ranking elevates Nebraska’s flagship, land-grant university to No. 152 nationally, up seven spots from No. 159 one year ago. Among all public institutions in the United States, UNL advanced its place in the top 100, moving up three places to No. 81.

“From enrollment and student retention to research funding and national rankings, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln is gaining incredible momentum as we press forward into an extraordinary future,” Chancellor Rodney D. Bennett said. “These successes are a testament to the dedication of our faculty and staff to fostering an environment of excellence.”

The U.S. News & World Report ranking also tracked growth in academic areas where UNL has recently made significant facility investments. The College of Engineering jumped 11 spots to No. 71 nationally among programs where the highest degree offered is a doctorate. And, the College of Business showed a considerable gain in undergraduate business programs (up nine spots to No. 53) and rose in undergraduate economics instruction (up two places to No. 143).

Both colleges offer cutting-edge facilities — Hawks Hall for the College of Business, as well as Kiewit Hall and the remodeled Scott Engineering Center for the College of Engineering — which have been a draw for first-year students.

Lance C. Pérez, Fred Hunzeker Dean of Engineering, credited a collective effort to move the college forward in national perception. That effort includes $115 million raised to build Kiewit Hall; expanded scholarship opportunities, including the Peter Kiewit Foundation Engineering Academy and the Kiewit Scholars program; 68 new faculty hires in the last six years; increases in research funding; and greater levels of career excellence by engineering graduates.

“Our recent significant investments have generated a real excitement around Nebraska Engineering, capturing greater attention nationally,” Pérez said. “However, the true heart of our success lies in our dedicated staff and faculty. Their relentless commitment to this being a place where every person and every interaction matters is propelling our college and students toward greater achievements.”

In the College of Business, the ranking coincides with a record-breaking 11.1% increase in first-year business majors, with notable growth in accounting, actuarial science, business and law, and finance.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on October 07, 2024, 02:28:38 PM
So the Athletic polled their CFB writers prior to this week for the Heisman, and the top 4 in their rankings were Jalen Milroe, Cam Ward, Travis Hunter and Ashton Jeanty

Sam Vecinni then pointed out that if that was the NYC invite list, how similar to the 1997 invite list that would be.

You have your SEC helmet school QB (Peyton Manning-Jalen Milroe)

You have your two way WR/CB star (Charles Woodson-Travis Hunter)

You have your mid major stud who is just too good to ignore (Randy Moss-Ashton Jeanty)

And...you have your QB who at least currently or previously played for Washington State (Ryan Leaf-Cam Ward)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 07, 2024, 03:00:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fMTkzCQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 08, 2024, 07:18:54 AM
Speaking of university academic rankings, my recollection is that UGA when I went was ... mediocre, sort of an average southern U.  Now, it's better than average, not elite, but solid.  I think this reflects two things, first, the population growth in the state.  You now have more students trying for admission and can be more selective.  Second, the Hope Scholarship pays for tuition if you're a good HS student, a thing that further attracts better students who might otherwise have gone elsewhere.  Is the education better?  Maybe, but because the students are better at being students.  

University of Georgia - Profile, Rankings and Data | US News Best Colleges (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-georgia-1598)

University of Georgia is a public institution that was founded in 1785. It has a total undergraduate enrollment of 31,514 (fall 2023), its setting is city, and the campus size is 767 acres. It utilizes a semester-based academic calendar. University of Georgia's ranking in the 2025 edition of Best Colleges is National Universities, #46. Its in-state tuition and fees are $11,440; out-of-state tuition and fees are $31,678.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 08, 2024, 01:54:14 PM
Update 10/8: Nebraska is running away from the pack and has what could be an unsurmountable lead in the blood donation drive. In one week we went from 46 donors to 530. Let's keep it up. Here are the top 5 leaders as of this morning.

University

Lives Saved

Donors

Nebraska

1590

530

Michigan

399

133

Wisconsin

375

125

Indiana

357

119

Purdue

333

111

In the first week of competition Nebraska is ahead in the Abbott/Big Ten Blood Drive competition. We are on top of the leaderboard with 46-and-counting blood donations logged. There is $1 Million Dollars on the line for the winning school to advance student or community health.


Students, alumni and fans can donate blood on behalf of Nebraska at blood centers across the country; donation totals will be tracked live at BigTen.Org/Abbott throughout the campaign.

Participants receive a free one-month subscription to B1G+ streaming service and are entered to win two tickets and a trip to the Big Ten Football Championship Game.

The competition comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing one of the biggest blood shortages in a generation, in part due to the fact that the number of younger donors has declined sharply in recent years. The initiative aims to inspire young people to become life-long donors to ensure a stable blood supply, especially as older adults become unable to donate.


The X's and O's

"The We Give Blood Drive" blood donation competition will run during the college football season, from Sept. 26 through Dec. 6, with the winner announced at the Big Ten Championship Game on Dec. 7 in Indianapolis.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 09, 2024, 10:33:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/yC2lmFJ.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2024, 11:17:41 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/OZZHauL.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2024, 09:58:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NtSTig6.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 11, 2024, 12:56:41 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/qoOTEwl.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 08:57:33 AM
I was musing last night about how a very close road loss to a top ranked team means the losing team will drop in the rankings, maybe not much, but some.  A close home win by a team over an inferior opponent usually doesn't mean much, maybe a drop of 1-2-3 spots depending on what else happens.  I'm thinking about Ohio State and Bama here, and even Florida with an OT loss against a top ten ranked opponent (who maybe is not really a top ten team).

It all works out, usually, at the end, more or less kinda, but I suspect Ohio State will get dropped to around 5 or so, while Bama won't drop more than one place.  UGA showed some holes as well, they probably will move up a notch.

I think we I to do a poll, I'd have OSU as the top ranked one loss team, maybe at 3, and drop PSU a few spots, and Bama and Tenn a bit.  I might even move UGA to 6, but I realize it doesn't matter, so I didn't give it much "thought", if any.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 09:55:42 AM
So, how would you rank the current top ten?  It's easier to drop teams than to move teams up.

It always seems like a bunch of teams "don't look that good" but then who replaces them?  They don't look very good either often as not.

We have Texas at 1 and Oregon at 2, fair enough, and then it gets ..., murky.  Do you penalize teams for ugly wins?  I would, but several top tenners had ugly wins, PSU/Bama/UGA/Tenn.  BYU and A&M move up?  Ole Miss lost too.  LSU?  Clemson?



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 11:39:13 AM
States With The Most Confrontational Drivers 2024 – Forbes Advisor (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/state-rankings-confrontational-drivers/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 11:52:02 AM
Atlanta Global Spotlight Drives Soaring Interest in Buckhead Condo (thedillonbuckhead.com) (https://www.thedillonbuckhead.com/news/atlantas-global-spotlight-drives-soaring-interest-in-buckhead-condominium/?referer=OctoberBlog&utm_source=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=120214079835030013&utm_content=120214079835040013&utm_id=120214079835030013_v2_s02&utm_term=120214079835050013&fbclid=IwY2xjawF4y4xleHRuA2FlbQEwAAEdFRxcjtNvC-JzEULfbfRCt0WBbIgnE611Qix-0NhkRzKg9GvB9lQQhbHo_aem_Apvc8ITZ1P5oW7tgshqu8w)

Each year, the Economist Intelligence Unit assesses cities worldwide for their livability and publishes the highly anticipated Global Liveability Index. This report evaluates over 173 cities based on 30 indicators, including stability, healthcare, culture, environment, and education. Atlanta’s rise to 29th place globally—up four spots—is a testament to its impressive recent progress. The city's infrastructure benefits from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the world's busiest, and an extensive transportation network that links its dynamic neighborhoods. Forbes highlights that Atlanta's stability, combined with its rich cultural heritage and vibrant arts scene, has positioned it as a highly desirable location for both residents and businesses.

This stuff is mostly subjective and weighted obviously.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 11:59:23 AM
States With The Most Confrontational Drivers 2024 – Forbes Advisor (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/state-rankings-confrontational-drivers/)

CA listed as worst.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 12:24:11 PM
Florida changes a lot when all the snowbirds arrive from the NE and Midwest.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2024, 12:32:14 PM
What's a "dynamic" neighborhood?

Advertisers and the like piss me off with their careful phrasing.  Dynamic is a positive word that isn't measurable.  So anything can be dynamic.  A fucking manatee can be dynamic.  No one can prove otherwise, because it isn't measurable.

Also, their use of can and may.  When we read or hear something with relatively high stakes, can and may become will in our heads. 
Hurricane _____ may bring record-setting storm surge.  Sure, but it may not.  Just trying to fear-monger. 
Or sell you something.
Or whatever the fuck.

It's all unethical.  And perfectly legal and accepted.  I'd say we're better than this, but I'd be wrong.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 12:33:20 PM
Florida changes a lot when all the snowbirds arrive from the NE and Midwest.
What percentage of the winter population is snow birds would you guess?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 12:38:07 PM
Probably around 10 million. 

@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) have been here longer than me. They would know better.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2024, 12:39:32 PM
Probably around 10 million.

@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) have been here longer than me. They would know better.
A 20-million person state adds 33% to its population during the winter? 




(https://media.tenor.com/C0_pO0H6cqUAAAAM/ok-yeah.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 12:42:20 PM
Well over half the residents in our development are not here right now.

If you wanted to visit Naples or Sarasota, it's best done when they are all gone (and prior to hurricane peak season). 

Sarasota is a mess right now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2024, 12:47:00 PM
A simple google search says 800,000-1 million snow birds in FL.  Mostly on the southern Atlantic coast.  Hmmph.  That goes against the anecdotal data of 1 person.  Weird.

You were only off by 1 order of magnitude.  
Nice.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 12:51:45 PM
I presume where badger lives has a much higher proportion than the Panhandle or Ocala.  A million would be about 4%, but likely they are concentrated, as noted, in the southern parts of the state, and perhaps highly concentrated in certain developments which may cater specifically to them.

So, it's reasonable it could be ten percent plus of drivers around Fort Myers etc.  That would be enough to notice, I think, restaurants would be more full, traffic heavier, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 12:54:07 PM
A simple google search says 800,000-1 million snow birds in FL.  Mostly on the southern Atlantic coast.  Hmmph.  That goes against the anecdotal data of 1 person.  Weird.

You were only off by 1 order of magnitude. 
Nice.
That number is very low based on my simple Google search, and it does not include people who come down here to rent a condo for a month.

Stay in your lane.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 12:56:42 PM
I presume where badger lives has a much higher proportion than the Panhandle or Ocala.  A million would be about 4%, but likely they are concentrated, as noted, in the southern parts of the state, and perhaps highly concentrated in certain developments which may cater specifically to them.

So, it's reasonable it could be ten percent plus of drivers around Fort Myers etc.  That would be enough to notice, I think, restaurants would be more full, traffic heavier, etc.
Definitely far more than 10 percent around here.

We've already booked many reservations, months out, through April. Hopefully they will be open. Most got hit hard, twice within two weeks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 01:01:13 PM
We stay at the Hampton Inn in North Port in January, I don't pay the tab directly, but was surprised when I looked up how much it is, it's $264 for January 13.

For July 13, it's $158.  That is some indicator of demand, albeit for motels of course.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 01:18:09 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2024, 01:33:35 PM
That number is very low based on my simple Google search, and it does not include people who come down here to rent a condo for a month.

Stay in your lane.
All of the sources saying 1 million specify it includes those staying for one month or more.  

YOU WERE OFF BY 9 MILLION.  WHERE EVEN IS YOUR LANE?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 13, 2024, 01:35:08 PM
Probably around 10 million.

@Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) and @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) have been here longer than me. They would know better.
This is less factual and more observation.  

Before Covid- snowbirds would add 15-20% to the crowd here.  Then, during Covid, that mostly became permanent.    Now snowbirds seem to add like 10%.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 13, 2024, 01:36:52 PM
All we need is around 19,999,997 more individual anecdotes, and we'll have the data I've already shared!!!!  Yaay!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 01:41:14 PM
All of the sources saying 1 million specify it includes those staying for one month or more. 


They are simply wrong. There are many, many people who come and go. Two weeks, gone, two weeks, gone, two weeks, gone.

My lane is in Florida. You know, where I live and experience the effects of "season".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 13, 2024, 01:52:49 PM
All we need is around 19,999,997 more individual anecdotes, and we'll have the data I've already shared!!!!  Yaay!
I am not debating the facts.  Have no idea.  

just sharing my perception from the small tri county area where I live.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 01:55:46 PM
I am not debating the facts.  Have no idea. 

just sharing my perception from the small tri county area where I live. 
Last "season" we had 5 visitors who stayed with us for one week or more.

How about you?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2024, 01:57:19 PM
Last "season" we had 5 visitors who stayed with us for one week or more.

How about you?
Sweet, I'll bring the whole fam and visit.  A month good, or should we plan on two?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 02:05:19 PM
Not much to do around here for kids. Heh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 02:32:51 PM
This is just dumb.

(https://i.imgur.com/UQEXl21.png)

A drop that far after a ONE point road loss to #3 is idiocy.

I have them at #2 still.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2024, 02:36:22 PM
It is dumb, I agree, and predictable.  I would have them at 3 followed by Vandy.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 13, 2024, 03:12:50 PM
Last "season" we had 5 visitors who stayed with us for one week or more.

How about you?
Constant visitors late January into April.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 13, 2024, 03:40:43 PM
Constant visitors late January into April. 
We have a lot of people coming down, starting in November.

They will not count in the stats, but they are snowbirds, just like the people who fill up the hotels, VRBO's, beaches and restaurants for a week at a time.

In my opinion, a snowbird doesn't have to own a home to be considered one.

It's warm here, and people come and go. Some stay longer than others, for sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2024, 03:43:13 PM
6 votes for Oregon at #1, every one of them from a B1G homer.  You gotta love it. :)

(https://i.imgur.com/4w6CKD6.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 13, 2024, 04:11:31 PM
6 votes for Oregon at #1, every one of them from a B1G homer.  You gotta love it. :)

(https://i.imgur.com/4w6CKD6.png)
Yeah.  That does seem homer ish.    I think Texas has separated themselves from the rest. 

As I said yesterday- I would bet confidently on the Horns against Oregon or OSU. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2024, 04:15:55 PM
Yeah.  That does seem homer ish.    I think Texas has separated themselves from the rest. 

As I said yesterday- I would bet confidently on the Horns against Oregon or OSU. 
Well I don't know about that, I think Oregon has a better victory than anything Texas has done so far.  And the same would be true of Ohio State had your Buckeyes won last night.

I just thought it was funny. I think Oregon is deserving of a #1 vote, and don't actually take any issue with this.

I think we'll find out more about Texas on Saturday.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on October 13, 2024, 04:23:53 PM
Well I don't know about that, I think Oregon has a better victory than anything Texas has done so far.  And the same would be true of Ohio State had your Buckeyes won last night.

I just thought it was funny. I think Oregon is deserving of a #1 vote, and don't actually take any issue with this.

I think we'll find out more about Texas on Saturday. 
I like their o-line.  The QB.  The defense.  

I guess “ on any given day”
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on October 13, 2024, 04:37:39 PM
Figure we will learn more about Texas on Saturday
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2024, 04:49:34 PM
I like their o-line.  The QB.  The defense. 

I guess “ on any given day”
The Horns are a fun team for me to watch, no doubt.  I love the defense.  I realize Texas has yet to play any top offenses, but in recent memory even the BAD offenses we've faced, have victimized the Horns' defenders.  Especially the secondary.  This year they're at least shutting down the teams they should.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on October 13, 2024, 05:00:54 PM
Georgia feels like the weirdest team to get a read on. They absolutely stifled Clemson, who have been really good since. They looked inept offensively against Kentucky. They looked both inept and very much ept against Alabama. They gave up 31 to 1-5 Miss. State. I have no idea what to expect from them against Texas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2024, 05:18:34 PM
Georgia's defense definitely appears to have issues. Lots of WRs running free in the past couple of games, which is where Texas makes its hay.  Horns only gave up 13 to Miss State a couple of weeks ago.  That may or may not mean anything.

I do expect the Bulldogs to play well and give their best shot.  It's tough to get up against Miss State but it's easy to want to knock off the team currently ranked #1.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on October 13, 2024, 06:00:42 PM
Well over half the residents in our development are not here right now.

If you wanted to visit Naples or Sarasota, it's best done when they are all gone (and prior to hurricane peak season).

Sarasota is a mess right now.
Her a random Google, it apparently is about 1 million people or 5% of the state
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 14, 2024, 08:25:59 AM
Her a random Google, it apparently is about 1 million people or 5% of the state

Those numbers do not include visitors to homes, visitors to hotels, anyone here less than a month.

When I'm on the road and see half of the plates from OOS or Canada, I can tell you google is very much incorrect.

Look at CFawg's post on the price of a hotel room in July versus January.

I hope you don't sit back and wonder "why".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 14, 2024, 09:45:19 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/i8aUGG0.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 14, 2024, 10:30:23 AM
Big game in the ATX this weekend.  It's also Formula 1.  Hotel rooms that are normally $300 per night, were going for almost 10x that.  I probably should have rented out my house for the weekend...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 14, 2024, 10:45:36 AM
could still rent out the servant's quarters in the back
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 12:21:31 PM
College football rankings: ESPN reveals Week 9 FPI Top 25 with Indiana, LSU surge (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-espn-reveals-week-9-fpi-top-25-with-indiana-lsu-surge-238343277/#2519318)

I generally ignore this FPI stuff, but this week seems to be more bizarre than usual.  They have Bama at 3 and Ole Miss at 5.

I guess they like SEC teams.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 20, 2024, 01:56:51 PM
Those numbers do not include visitors to homes, visitors to hotels, anyone here less than a month.

When I'm on the road and see half of the plates from OOS or Canada, I can tell you google is very much incorrect.

Look at CFawg's post on the price of a hotel room in July versus January.

I hope you don't sit back and wonder "why".
Hubris.

"I know better than google."

You bet, friend.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 02:12:47 PM
One year later: Michelin Guide’s impact on Atlanta restaurants (ajc.com) (https://www.ajc.com/food-and-dining/one-year-later-michelin-guides-impact-on-atlanta-restaurants/LGUUEIGFBFD5HNHR4R7D6UHEJE/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGCJw5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXEx_jdVOvEAf4V4clQwVIis6McK63o2venkIQsob0rLettr3fYGE45iuQ_aem_r9xdRNznNqLuQ0pxS6sZmA)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 02:13:47 PM
Figure we will learn more about Texas on Saturday
I don't know if we did, really, I don't know what to think.  The Dawg D gave them fits for a while, maybe they were just off kilter.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 20, 2024, 02:15:43 PM
I learned when it seems everyone is picking one team in a top-5 matchup, the other team often wins.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 20, 2024, 02:16:40 PM
Thor Anzalone has to wind up on the Vikings at some point, right??
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 02:17:04 PM
It could be "we" remember when the dog wins in such matchups, and don't remember when they don't.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 20, 2024, 02:23:18 PM
It could be "we" remember when the dog wins in such matchups, and don't remember when they don't.
Possibly.
But any consensus on evenly-matched teams is flawed by default, no?
Hasn't the 4-team playoff showed us that there's nothing special about being #1 vs being #4?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 02:33:30 PM
I agree that the difference between a #1 ranked team and #5 often is well within any "margin of error" or determinant of a final outcome.  The final results could be quite close to 50-50.  A 3 point underdog wins a good portion of the time, a bit less than half.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 20, 2024, 03:22:54 PM
I see the CFB polls moved the Dawgs to #2, which means ... nothing.  It's just kind of amusing to see what "they" come up with.

Bama fell to 15 after a competitve road loss to #7 and are the highest ranked 2 loss team.

Vandy is 25 in both polls, I like seeing that.  Guess who they play next Saturday!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 23, 2024, 04:17:39 PM
2025 MotorTrend SUV of the Year: The Finalists (https://www.motortrend.com/news/2025-motortrend-suv-of-the-year-finalists/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_type=organic&fbclid=IwY2xjawGGOMFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbN99HSNHxHyX2fFVFCQpSq5_HbyfITK6AR_nKkNxQIzuEazz9amvuMhWg_aem_QlN_-c1ueaAwzM0TEeKelQ)

A rather weird group of "finalists".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 23, 2024, 06:12:48 PM
Particularly since they trash at least one of the vehicles. So why include it on the list?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 23, 2024, 06:17:29 PM
The GMC Hummer EV SUV (https://www.motortrend.com/cars/gmc/hummer-ev-suv/2025/) is the vehicle we hate to love. Corner almost any SUV of the Year judge, and alone they’ll whisper the praises of this bonko-ridiculo Hummer SUV (https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-gmc-hummer-ev-suv-first-off-road-drive-review/). Put us all in a room together, however, and the hand wringing begins.

“An egregious waste of precious resources, not to be encouraged,” technical director Frank Markus bellowed. Features editor Scott Evans observed, “It’s gigantic and hard to find parking for, it’s grossly inefficient, and it’s all power and no brakes, which just feels like a recipe for disaster.” Head here for the full 2025 Hummer EV SUV SUVOTY review. (https://www.motortrend.com/news/2025-hummer-ev-suv-3x-pros-cons-review/)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 24, 2024, 07:30:02 AM
“It’s gigantic and hard to find parking for, it’s grossly inefficient, and it’s all power and no brakes

AMERICAN!!!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 24, 2024, 07:34:42 AM
I do wonder why car makers make such vehicles, they can't expect to sell more than a few.  Maybe it's just imagery.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 24, 2024, 07:37:50 AM
wish they still made large sedans
for no good reason
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 24, 2024, 07:46:22 AM
I wish they still made station wagons, though I wouldn't buy one.  Minivans are still around some.  Everything seems to be an "SUV" now, or truck.

I recall taking a trip in the backseat of a friend's Deville a while back, it was sumptuous, really, on the freeway quite comfortable.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 24, 2024, 08:05:04 AM
I saw an 86 limousine that had been converted into an offroad, Mad Max sorta thing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 24, 2024, 08:30:58 AM
I saw one of these in the Kansas City parking garage

A large sedan

(https://i.imgur.com/GXLXF7D.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: GopherRock on October 24, 2024, 09:31:32 AM
I wish they still made station wagons, though I wouldn't buy one.  Minivans are still around some.  Everything seems to be an "SUV" now, or truck.

I recall taking a trip in the backseat of a friend's Deville a while back, it was sumptuous, really, on the freeway quite comfortable. 
My 2016 Outback would be a station wagon in a previous era.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 26, 2024, 06:03:01 AM
 (https://www.bing.com/search?q=30+year+fixed+mortgage+rates&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgFEEUYwgMyBwgAEEUYwgMyBwgBEEUYwgMyBwgCEEUYwgMyBwgDEEUYwgMyBwgEEEUYwgMyBwgFEEUYwgMyBwgGEEUYwgMyBwgHEEUYwgPSAQ0zNDA2ODI0MjJqMGo0qAIIsAIB&FORM=ANAB01&PC=DCTS)The world’s best bars for 2024 announced | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/travel/worlds-best-bar-awards-2024-handshake-speakeasy-mexico-city/index.html)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 26, 2024, 07:56:32 AM
It's good to be the king.

20 U.S. Universities Famous for Their Legendary Party Culture (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/20-u-s-universities-famous-for-their-legendary-party-culture/ss-AA1sVL9A?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=126dc84b3e5a4c4282402a00dbd7c819&ei=25)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 26, 2024, 03:02:28 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/xPZrZPG.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 29, 2024, 08:14:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/tGGLKO4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 29, 2024, 09:36:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UF8FLMo.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 29, 2024, 09:47:35 AM
apparently, the US of A isn't even trying
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 29, 2024, 09:51:20 AM
[th]Largest U.S. Cities by Population
2024 Metro Area Rankings
[/th]
[th]Rank[/th]
[th]City Name[/th]
[th]Population[/th]
1New York City (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23083/new-york-city/population)19,034,000
2Los Angeles (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23052/los-angeles/population)12,598,000
3Chicago (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22956/chicago/population)8,984,000
4Houston (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23014/houston/population)6,802,000
5Dallas-Fort Worth (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22966/dallas-fort-worth/population)6,655,000
6Miami (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23064/miami/population)6,317,000
7Atlanta (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22922/atlanta/population)6,193,000
8Philadelphia (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23098/philadelphia/population)5,821,000
9Washington DC (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23174/washington-dc/population)5,545,000
10Phoenix (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23099/phoenix/population)4,777,000
11Boston (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22939/boston/population)4,367,000
12Seattle (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23140/seattle/population)3,549,000
13Detroit (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22974/detroit/population)3,528,000
14San Diego (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23129/san-diego/population)3,345,000
15San Francisco (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23130/san-francisco/population)3,343,000
16Minneapolis (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23068/minneapolis/population)3,014,000
17Tampa (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23160/tampa/population)3,009,000
18Denver (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22972/denver/population)2,963,000
19Las Vegas (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23043/las-vegas/population)2,953,000
20Riverside-San Bernardino (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23116/riverside-san-bernardino/population)2,631,000



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 29, 2024, 05:23:57 PM

Big Ten Head Coach Hot Seat Index - Week 9

Scorching: Ryan Walters (Purdue)

Walters and Purdue had a bye this week, so they could not do any more damage to themselves. However, he was also not able to pick up a win to cool off his seat. Walters will remain where he was on last week’s index as he heads into a matchup with struggling Northwestern.


Hot: Lincoln Riley (USC), DeShaun Foster (UCLA, Sherrone Moore (Michigan)

Riley was able to pick up a win over struggling Rutgers to stop the bleeding of his three-game losing streak. Despite the victory, USC is 4–4 and is in the midst of a very disappointing season. The upcoming game on Saturday against Washington is crucial for both teams, but especially for Riley’s Trojans.

Foster and UCLA were on a bye week as well, saving them from any potential damage. This week, the Bruins will face Nebraska. The Huskers will be desperate for a victory after losing two games in a row. Foster and UCLA will be in for a huge challenge on the road in Lincoln, which is a very tough place to play.


Moore and Michigan picked up a rivalry win over Michigan State 24–17 on Saturday. That victory will temporarily cool things down in Ann Arbor, but it will not eliminate the reality of how disappointing of a season the Wolverines are having. Moore is going to have to win a lot more games if he wants to shake the “temporary coach” label that it still feels like he wears prominently.

Warming up: Greg Schiano (Rutgers), Mike Locksley (Maryland)

Rutgers has now lost four games in a row since starting the season 4-0. Schiano is probably safe because of the low expectations around Rutgers’ football program, but a four-game losing streak will test the patience of any fan base. The Scarlet Knights are on a bye this week, so they will have to wait even longer to try and end this losing streak.


Locksley followed up his upset victory over USC with a blowout loss to Minnesota. Maryland is now 1-4 in the conference and is showing little signs of improvement in Locksley’s sixth season, but back-to-back eight-win seasons before this one have given him some freedom to have a down year.

Room temperature: P.J. Fleck (Minnesota), David Braun (Northwestern), Matt Rhule (Nebraska), Kirk Ferentz (Iowa), Ryan Day (Ohio State), Bret Bielema (Illinois)

Fleck and Minnesota had a convincing victory over Maryland on Saturday. The Golden Gophers now have a 3–2 conference record and have won three games in a row. Braun’s Northwestern team did not have as much success. They were destroyed 40–14 by Iowa to drop their second game in a row. They have a great chance to break that losing streak next week against a struggling Purdue team.


Rhule’s Cornhuskers showed remarkable improvement after their blowout loss to Indiana. The Huskers played Ohio State even for four quarters but were unable to close the deal. Still, with a young star quarterback in Dylan Raiola and an improving roster, things are looking up in Lincoln. Meanwhile, Ferentz and Iowa were business-like in the Hawkeyes’ destruction of Northwestern. It was a classic defensive performance by Iowa as they dominated the Wildcats 40-14.

Day and Ohio State avoided what would have been a disastrous upset by holding on to defeat Nebraska 21-17. It was an ugly game offensively for the Buckeyes, who looked like they were sleepwalking against a Huskers team that is too good not to take seriously. The Buckeyes may have been looking ahead to this week's showdown with Penn State, and who can blame them?

Bielema and Illinois are still having a great season, but they were absolutely dominated by Oregon on Saturday. The Fighting Illini did not look like they belonged on the same field as the Ducks. They were still able to remain in the top 25 after the blowout loss, and they have a chance for a bounce-back victory against Minnesota on Saturday.


Ice cold: Dan Lanning (Oregon), Curt Cignetti (Indiana), James Franklin (Penn State), Jonathan Smith (Michigan State), Luke Fickell (Wisconsin), Jedd Fisch (Washington)

These coaches occupy the most comfortable spot on this index.

Lanning, Franklin, and Cignetti are still undefeated heading into Week 10. Franklin and Penn State have their biggest game of the season, hosting Ohio State. Lanning travels to the Big House for a road test with Michigan, and Cignetti’s Hoosiers get a much-deserved bye week. The week off should give Kurtis Rourke plenty of time to be ready for Michigan.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 30, 2024, 07:22:55 AM
𝐓𝐨𝐩 𝟓 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐒
(https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t7a/1/16/31_20e3.png) I-5, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Interstate 5 (I-5) is a major north-south highway running through the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area in California.

(https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/t99/1/16/32_20e3.png) I-75, Atlanta, GA
In Atlanta, I-75 is a crucial component of the city's transportation network, merging with I-85 to form the Downtown Connector and providing essential connections to major destinations and suburbs.

(https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tb8/1/16/33_20e3.png) I-5, Mission Viejo, CA
In Mission Viejo, I-5 is a major north-south highway that plays a crucial role in connecting the community with other parts of Southern California and beyond. It offers vital links to regional and national destinations, facilitating significant commuter and commercial traffic.

(https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/td7/1/16/34_20e3.png) I-405, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
I-405 is a critical transportation corridor that connects various neighborhoods and business districts within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area, facilitating both local and regional travel across a densely populated and economically significant region.

(https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/images/emoji.php/v9/tf6/1/16/35_20e3.png) I-210, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
Interstate 210 (I-210), also known as the Foothill Freeway, is a significant east-west highway in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area.
_________________________


Kinda funny, usually that I-75/85 in ATL is barely moving, if at all.  Hard to carry many cars at that speed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 30, 2024, 07:59:01 AM
They put I-5 on there twice. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 30, 2024, 10:44:50 AM
They put I-5 on there twice.
Same freeway, [slightly] different area. 

The area by me (Mission Viejo) tends to be horrible because it's the area known as the "El Toro Y", which is where the south end of the 405 rejoins the 5. And traffic completely bottles up. 

It doesn't help that they've been doing a freeway widening project that has required massive work to a lot of off-ramp/on-ramp complexes and overpasses, that's been going on since ~2018 or so, right through the Mission Viejo corridor. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 30, 2024, 11:00:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLAuzVb-C_o
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 30, 2024, 11:15:39 AM
It is possible UGa could finish 11-1 ranked number one and be a 5 seed. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2024, 04:17:58 PM
Here are the top 10 worst officiating calls of the college football season:

10. Jeremiah Smith called for pass interference
On the final drive of Ohio State’s top-five matchup at Oregon, Buckeyes true freshman Jeremiah Smith sensation was called for offensive pass interference. With quarterback Will Howard trying to engineer a game-winning drive, Smith worked to get open on a 2nd-and-10 from the Ducks’ 28.

The former Five-Star Plus+ recruit was called for offensive pass interference for pushing off Oregon cornerback Nikko Reed. The call moved Ohio State backward 15 yards to the Oregon 43-yard-line. Out of field goal range, Howard was forced to scramble on the game’s final play as Ohio State failed to complete the comeback.


“Was there contact between Jeremiah Smith and the corner? Yes. And was it physical? Yes. There’s no doubt,” FOX analyst Joel Klatt said after the game. “On the film, all night it had been physical and in fact, the play previous Jeremiah Smith is being held the entire time he’s trying to run a corner route. It was a physical game. And they had let them play, for the most part, throughout the entirety of the game.

“Then all of a sudden, the corner squats and Jeremiah Smith is running his route and contacts the corner and then breaks out, doesn’t extend, again he doesn’t push off in order to create the space. And the flag comes out. I thought it was a bad call.”



9. Indiana called for confusing roughing the passer
Late in the third quarter of Indiana’s blowout win over UCLA, Hoosiers defensive lineman Lanell Carr Jr. rushed off the edge and sacked quarterback Ethan Garbers. The 8-yard tackle for loss was flagged by officials and called for pass interference.

“OK, roughing the passer, he doesn’t throw the football,” NBC commentator Todd Blackledge said in the moments after the call. “It’s a sack. How is this roughing the passer?”


NBC rules analyst Terry McAulay weighed in and cited passing posture, but admitted the call was arguable.

“Because he’s in a passing posture, Todd,” McAulay said. “Once he goes into that passing posture, he becomes subject to roughing the passer rules. What the rule here was that he drove him into the ground and punished him by landing on top of him. Arguable of course.”



8. Nebraska run spotted incorrectly, forced to use timeout
On the final drive of the first half at Ohio State last Saturday in a one-score game, Nebraska running back Emmett Johnson picked up a first down on 3rd-and-1. But the ball was not spotted correctly, taking time off the clock when the first down should have resulted in the clock stopping.

The play was not reviewed and the clock was not stopped, forcing the Huskers to take a timeout. Nebraska picked up the first down on the next play. The decision resulted in the Big Ten issuing a statement earlier this week.


“During Nebraska’s final drive of the first half, on second down with two yards to gain on the Ohio State 39-yard line, the ball was incorrectly spotted after a run by Cornhusker RB Emmett Johnson,” the Big Ten said in a statement. “The ball carrier crossed the 37-yard line and a first down should have been awarded to Nebraska. Replay should have stopped the game to review the spot since it involved the line-to-gain.”


7. Colorado’s third-down catch ruled incomplete
In the third quarter of Colorado at Nebraska in September, Shedeur Sanders hit Jimmy Horn Jr. on a crucial third down. Officials ruled it an incomplete pass on the field before watching it on replay. The NBC broadcasters were convinced it would be turned over on the replay.

Officials went on to rule it an incomplete pass, stunning NBC rules analyst Terry McAulay.

“That’s the way I see it, Paul,” said McAulay. “And it does appear indisputable in this case. … This is just stunning. There is no question he gets the control with his hands with that toe down. And this is just a clear error in my mind from the Big Ten Command Center. Wow.”


6. Controversial no-targeting call in Miami-Cal
A week after Miami escaped Virginia Tech’s Hail Mary attempt, the Hurricanes were in the middle of another controversial call. On the road at Cal, the Golden Bears led 38-32 in the fourth quarter trying to run out the clock. Quarterback Fernando Mendoza scrambled on 3rd-and-12 but was hit helmet-to-helmet by Miami linebacker Wesley Bissainthe.

There was no call on the play, but officials reviewed it for targeting. No targeting was found on the replay, forcing Cal to punt. Miami proceeded to go on a six-play, 92-yard drive to escape with a 39-38 win.

“Back-to-back weeks Miami is in a situation where it comes down to replay and you question if the officials are getting the calls correct,” ESPN analyst Brock Osweiler said on the broadcast. “I do not know by the definition of the rulebook, how that is not targeting … By definition that is 100 percent targeting.”



5. Kentucky pick-six overturned
Kentucky defensive back Zion Childress picked off Carson Beck in the second quarterback of the Wildcats’ upset bid to knock off No. 1 Georgia. Childress took the pick-six to the house to put the Wildcats up 10-0 and give Kentucky a sizable lead.

The touchdown was taken off the board after being ruled incomplete, though. The call was flipped upon review as officials said the ball touched the ground before popping up on the interception. Kentucky would have been in full control against the nation’s No. 1 team. Instead, Georgia escaped with a 13-12 win.


UK head coach Mark Stoops later said he “absolutely” sent the overturned pick-six to the SEC for review.

“Do you want to pay — I get very frustrated but 50 grand is 50 grand,” Stoops joked days after the Georgia game about the $50,000 fine coaches receive when they complain about officiating. “No, if I get pissed enough, I could afford it.”



4. Minnesota onside kick called back for offsides
Minnesota scored three touchdowns in the fourth quarter against Michigan, leaving the Wolverines hanging onto a 27-24 lead with 1:37 remaining in the game. With the Golden Gophers set to kickoff, they attempted an onside kick but were flagged for offsides. Minnesota re-kicked, which Michigan recovered and proceeded to run out the clock.

As the onside kick and call played out in real-time, FOX rules analyst Mike Pereira disagreed with the call and said it was “awfully close.” The play was not reviewable.

“I don’t think he’s offside,” Pereira continued. “… I don’t think he’s breaking the plane.”

Days after Minnesota’s loss, the Big Ten announced it was making a rule change, prompted by the offsides call on the onside kick.

“Effective immediately, the Big Ten has been approved by the NCAA to implement a modified officiating mechanic that will allow the conference to change the manner in which it officiates onside kicks by positioning the Line Judge and Head Line-Judge on the kicking team’s restraining line, thereby putting multiple officials in the best position to consistently make the correct judgment,” the conference said in its statement.



3. Personal foul denies South Carolina pick-six
With 6:15 remaining in LSU at South Carolina, Tigers quarterback Garrett Nussmeier dropped back to pass and threw an interception directly to defensive back Nick Emmanwori. With South Carolina up 33-29 and Emmanwori on his way to a pick-six, the Gamecocks had the win all but wrapped up.

But officials threw a flag on the play for a personal foul. South Carolina EDGE Kyle Kennard was flagged for pushing Nussmeier after the pass and when he started to run out of the pocket. Because of the call, the interception was brought back and South Carolina started its drive from its 10-yard-line.

“What the heck is going on with the roughing the passers?” former ESPN commentator David Pollack said about the call. “They make an unbelievable play, (Kyle) Kennard gets to him and hits him, basically forces an INT, forces him to throw the football. Then he touches him. Like he gives him a little touch and it’s a 15-yard penalty. I’m not sure what you want him to do.”


2. Virginia Tech’s Hail Mary attempt overturned
On the final play of Virginia Tech at Miami in late September, Hokies quarterback Kyron Drones heaved a 30-yard Hail Mary into the end zone. Virginia Tech wide receiver Da’Quan Felton came down with the ball as officials ruled it a touchdown. Miami’s Isaiah Horton emerged from the pile of players with the ball, but it initially appeared Felton caught the ball before it was wrestled away.


As the Hokies celebrated the win on the field, head referee Jerry Magallanes ordered teams back to their sidelines for a replay review. For more than six minutes, officials reviewed the Hail Mary. When Magallanes returned, he announced the touchdown was overturned. The Hurricanes escaped with a 38-34 victory.

“During the review process of the last play …. it was determined that the loose ball was touched by a Miami player while he was out of bounds which makes it an incomplete pass and immediately ends the play,” the ACC said in a statement.



1. Texas pass interference overturned
With 3:12 remaining in the third quarter of Georgia at Texas, the cornerback Jahdae Barron picked off Carson Beck and returned it 36 yards. Texas was flagged for defensive pass interference on the play, however, giving Georgia the ball back with a first down.

As officials gathered to discuss the call, Texas fans threw water bottles and trash onto the field at Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. Moments later, officials announced defensive pass interference should not have been called and Texas was awarded the ball at Georgia’s 9-yard-line. The Bulldogs went on to win 30-15.


_________________________________________________ _

Go here if you want to see the video replays
https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-10-worst-officiating-calls-of-2024-college-football-season/ (https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-10-worst-officiating-calls-of-2024-college-football-season/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on October 31, 2024, 04:29:39 PM
Oh yeah.  We're #1!  We're #1!  We're #1!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 31, 2024, 04:40:15 PM
Seems to be missing the phantom hold against Wisconsin on the kickoff return that should have given them the ball at the PSU 32 last weekend. Big play in a game Wisconsin needed a couple of breaks in--and that break definitely went PSU's way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on October 31, 2024, 05:04:50 PM
From the SEC Threads, it is possible UGA could end up the No. 1 ranked team and not get into the SEC CG.  They would be a 5 seed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on October 31, 2024, 05:06:39 PM
5 of the 10 included Big Ten teams
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 01, 2024, 11:16:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/i0Td3el.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 02, 2024, 11:47:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZj20V_GhzI
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 02, 2024, 02:45:13 PM
Best Resume's what?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 05, 2024, 06:12:51 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7QqzTw5.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 05, 2024, 06:55:08 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QlZe12G.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 06, 2024, 09:26:24 AM
The whole CFP ranking at this point ...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 07, 2024, 04:41:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/LnUzprh.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8zKVnD7.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on November 08, 2024, 07:14:26 PM
Miami. But Oregon and BYU have a pretty good shot at it, too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 08, 2024, 07:21:15 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/catlSwZ.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 10, 2024, 08:39:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ozfPJnC.png)

I'm not an art museum kind of fellow though we have a membership to the local one (not near the list).  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 10, 2024, 08:42:39 AM
not very famous
I've heard of the Louvre
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 10, 2024, 08:45:24 AM
We walked through the Vatican museum rather quickly on a tour, it is impressive in terms of size and scope.  I've been to the British museum, folks scurry about to check off seeing the famous paintings there and ignore anything quasi-famous.  There would be a pack of them flying down the halls to see "Sunflowers" and taking no time for anything else.  It was amusing.  I turned down a chance to see MOMA with family because the Tech-Georgia game was on TV.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 11, 2024, 01:44:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7zjowL7.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 11, 2024, 04:25:01 PM
Where's Iowa???

(https://i.imgur.com/r6wH6nd.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 13, 2024, 12:58:35 PM
Rankings... ugh

(https://i.imgur.com/Lx7kArc.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 01:03:11 PM
Apparently BYU has played a helluva schedule 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 13, 2024, 01:08:24 PM
I think this is one of the most useless nonsensical ranking charts I've ever seen, but it made me laugh so I posted it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 01:09:50 PM
KState and SMU?
Beat a bad Okie st by 3 at home 
Refs saved them vs Utah 

I wouldn't cornsider that deserving 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 13, 2024, 01:23:46 PM
KState and SMU?
Beat a bad Okie st by 3 at home
Refs saved them vs Utah

I wouldn't cornsider that deserving
I assume that's why they're on the "negative" side of the graph.

But then again, who knows???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 01:37:29 PM
Hmm, I see negative percentages on the right 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 13, 2024, 01:53:59 PM
Hmm, I see negative percentages on the right
Yes, and you referenced SMU and KSU, who are both on the right...?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 01:56:48 PM
Only because they're the only quality teams BYU has played.   Not because they were on the graph.

Undefeated Oregon has played Ohio state 
Seems more impressive to me 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 02:02:59 PM
I assume that they put BYU there to get comments from people like me and fans of Indiana and Oregon 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 13, 2024, 02:23:49 PM
Oh sorry, you mentioned KSU and SMU, I didn't realize you were talking about BYU with that specific comment.

Yeah, they seem to be very overrated as a "deserving" team.  Part of the silliness of this graph.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 13, 2024, 02:28:20 PM
Click bait
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 17, 2024, 03:44:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/k5cpHgn.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on November 19, 2024, 10:51:38 AM
Sort of a ranking...

(https://i.imgur.com/qSv2MX4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 19, 2024, 11:29:16 AM
Huskers not as bad as I expected

just can't win on the scoreboard
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on November 19, 2024, 11:31:44 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/k5cpHgn.jpeg)
How is Washington State still ranked?  I feel like it's writers who only half pay attention and think having 2 losses at this point of the year is pretty good in a presumably tough Pac 12
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on November 19, 2024, 11:39:53 AM
I want WSU's OC and QB.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 19, 2024, 11:45:21 AM
How is Washington State still ranked?  I feel like it's writers who only half pay attention and think having 2 losses at this point of the year is pretty good in a presumably tough Pac 12

Missouri (56) 7-3; Memphis (38) 9-2; Kansas State (36) 7-3; Syracuse (21) 7-3; Louisville (15) 6-4; LSU (6) 6-4; Pittsburgh (6) 7-3; Louisiana (5) 8-2; Vanderbilt (4) 6-4; James Madison (2) 8-2; Duke (2) 7-3; Colorado State (2) 7-3; Georgia Tech (1) 6-4;

Potential alternatives....
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on November 19, 2024, 12:48:11 PM
Missouri (56) 7-3; Memphis (38) 9-2; Kansas State (36) 7-3; Syracuse (21) 7-3; Louisville (15) 6-4; LSU (6) 6-4; Pittsburgh (6) 7-3; Louisiana (5) 8-2; Vanderbilt (4) 6-4; James Madison (2) 8-2; Duke (2) 7-3; Colorado State (2) 7-3; Georgia Tech (1) 6-4;

Potential alternatives....
Highlighted ones for sure, and I would consider Duke and Georgia Tech as well
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 19, 2024, 08:11:23 PM
How is Washington State still ranked?  I feel like it's writers who only half pay attention and think having 2 losses at this point of the year is pretty good in a presumably tough Pac 12
Missouri (56) 7-3; Memphis (38) 9-2; Kansas State (36) 7-3; Syracuse (21) 7-3; Louisville (15) 6-4; LSU (6) 6-4; Pittsburgh (6) 7-3; Louisiana (5) 8-2; Vanderbilt (4) 6-4; James Madison (2) 8-2; Duke (2) 7-3; Colorado State (2) 7-3; Georgia Tech (1) 6-4;

Potential alternatives....
Because they have to rank (what's in their head) P5 teams by number of losses.  Literally.  7 year olds might as well work for the AP.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 24, 2024, 09:11:26 AM
College football rankings: AP Top 25 Week 14 projection after Oklahoma stuns Alabama, Ohio State drubs Indiana (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-ap-top-25-week-14-projection-after-ohio-state-drubs-indiana-ole-miss-falls-240249233/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3A8d1syXZb79vfGdjwFZKddc6vm28iuIX-0tRu_M5dw-mXWAn7TZglFgM_aem_c5orBQuLsbCt5Z791KpD2g)

"We" can't even wait a few hours to see the "real" meaningless AP poll, we have to project it as well.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 24, 2024, 09:18:09 AM
we all do it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 24, 2024, 05:07:56 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/RPff7nN.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 24, 2024, 05:46:36 PM
College Football Playoff 2024 projections: Indiana hangs on as Alabama, Ole Miss fall out - The Athletic (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5701128/2024/11/24/college-football-playoff-projections-odds/)

I only cite this because some of these first round games would be pretty epic:

Tennessee at Penn State

SMU at Texas

Boise State at Ohio State

Indiana at Notre Dame  

I'd watch all I could manage.

They have 1-4 going to Oregon/UGA/Miami/Iowa State, which is a guess as good as any.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 24, 2024, 05:51:54 PM
I'd watch em all
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 24, 2024, 05:55:19 PM
College Football Playoff 2024 projections: Indiana hangs on as Alabama, Ole Miss fall out - The Athletic (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5701128/2024/11/24/college-football-playoff-projections-odds/)

I only cite this because some of these first round games would be pretty epic:

Tennessee at Penn State

SMU at Texas

Boise State at #5??Ohio State

Indiana at Notre Dame 

I'd watch all I could manage.

They have 1-4 going to Oregon/UGA/Miami/Iowa State, which is a guess as good as any.
this happens and the SEC blows it up
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 24, 2024, 06:05:43 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/BIOYOkm.png)+

:57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 25, 2024, 08:31:55 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0bf0dQ3.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 25, 2024, 10:48:38 AM
I try to eat once a day

between 5 and 6pm
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 25, 2024, 02:27:47 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jznkWRt.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 25, 2024, 03:18:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/i4sUj3l.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 26, 2024, 11:16:12 AM
The 10 U.S. states with the highest average credit scores (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/26/average-credit-score-in-every-us-state.html)

Minnesota, NH, VT, and Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 11:31:30 PM
If all those SEC upsets didn't happen, SMU and IU would be out of the playoff right now.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 11:33:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/jznkWRt.png)
Easier to be set in your ways if you never expose yourself to other people.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 11:35:19 PM
If the playoff happened today:
12 ASU @
5 OSU....winner vs 4 Boise
.
9 Tenn @
8 UGA....winner vs 1 Oregon
.
11 Indiana @
6 Penn St.....winner vs 3 Miami-FL
.
10 SMU @
7 ND.........winner vs 2 Texas
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 11:39:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/BIOYOkm.png)+

:57:
Is it funny because it goes against the consensus or because of a real reason?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 11:52:40 PM
I like to combine the safe, consensus rankings (Oregon 1 because they haven't lost, etc) with the SOS-heavy models (Bama and UGA really high).  Here's a ranking that combines Massey's 2 of these types:
1 OSU
2 Georgia
3 Oregon
4 Texas
5 Bama
6 ND
7 Penn St
8 Miss
9 Tenn
drop off
10 Clemson
11 Indiana
12 Carolina
13 Miami
14 OU
15 Iowa St
16 A&M
17 LSU
18 SMU
19 Kansas St
20 Michigan
drop off
21 Florida
22 BYU
23 USC
24 Mizzou
25 Iowa
26 Louisville
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on November 27, 2024, 06:47:49 AM
If all those SEC upsets didn't happen, SMU and IU would be out of the playoff right now. 
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts.... 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 27, 2024, 07:13:51 AM
Upset Saturdays happen once a season usually but I don't recall its being concentrated so much in one conference.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 09:11:17 AM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....
Thanks for your contribution.  The point is that a 1-loss IU would be out.  Maybe focus on the point.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 09:23:02 AM
Brutus' point is that upsets happen

every week, will be more this week
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 09:23:57 AM
Brutus' point is that upsets happen

every week, will be more this week
So his point was that the inevitable happens?  Great point.
Hey guys, water is wet.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 27, 2024, 09:32:30 AM
We often hear the expression "Water is wet", but rarely is there any discussion as to WHY that is the case and why water is such an unusual molecule.

It's really weird stuff.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 09:36:11 AM
So his point was that the inevitable happens?  Great point.
Hey guys, water is wet.
and your point was that a 1-loss IU would be out?

fantasy
hey guys, let's imagine
_____________

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 10:09:18 AM
and your point was that a 1-loss IU would be out?

fantasy

There ya go!  A reply.  An opposing opinion.  I knew you had it in ya!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 10:15:42 AM
As I stated a week or so ago, I think a 1-loss Indiana is in over any 3-loss SEC team

and upsets to 2-loss SEC teams makes more 3-loss teams to prove against

with a bunch of 2-loss SEC teams, perhaps the Hoosiers are out.

I'd still put them in over 1-loss squads like SMU and Tulane
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 10:40:56 AM
IU's resume would be better than SMU's?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 11:05:55 AM
yup, in my opinion

SMU lost to BYU, not Ohio St.
big wins for SMU??? a couple 7-4 teams - Pitt & Louisville

best win?  @ 8-3 Duke by a point
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 11:59:42 AM
So his point was that the inevitable happens?  Great point.
Hey guys, water is wet.

Thanks for your contribution. Maybe focus on the point.

Easier to be set in your ways if you never expose yourself to other people.

You're so skewed, it hurts.
  Enjoy your bubble.  I'm tired of being disappointed by you. 
Nurse OAM is out again, just when I think you've run out of crass comments you come up with these toppers. And that's just from 2 threads in the last couple of hrs. Any other rare gems you've mined today for the congregation? Being passionate is not an excuse for being an ass.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 12:10:56 PM
hey, maybe Thanksgiving break started a day late or sumthin
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 12:12:38 PM
Didn't get an invite wonder why?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 12:55:09 PM
Nurse OAM is out again, just when I think you've run out of crass comments you come up with these toppers. And that's just from 2 threads in the last couple of hrs. Any other rare gems you've mined today for the congregation? Being passionate is not an excuse for being an ass.

Did my comment about the people of Mississippi rub you the wrong way?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 01:05:35 PM
Have a 5 year old re-read your comment,perhaps you'll understand better
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 01:12:52 PM
Most 5 year olds couldn't read and comprehend my comments.  

I guess I owe the state of MS an apology because you got butthurt.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 01:37:17 PM
Most 5 year olds couldn't read and comprehend my comments.
No they're smart enough to not bother scrutinizing groundless garble

I guess I owe the state of MS an apology because you got butthurt.
Bogies rearing their ugly heads again? Go find a post where I mentioned MS,I'll wait. My friend Kurt's wife just past away from MS the Sickness not the state - would you like a link to the obits?

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 27, 2024, 01:54:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/pdqpiFy.png)

Does this math work?  They are 6 over with bogeys and claw one back with a birdie but then have nearly 2 doubles.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 02:05:04 PM
Most 5 year olds couldn't read and comprehend my comments.

No they're smart enough to not bother scrutinizing groundless garble
Sick burn


I guess I owe the state of MS an apology because you got butthurt.
Bogies rearing their ugly heads again? Go find a post where I mentioned MS,I'll wait. My friend Kurt's wife just past away from MS the Sickness not the state - would you like a link to the obits?
You quoted the map of % of people who don't have passports - ie those who don't get out into the world much - ie those who spend their lives in a bubble of what and who they're most comfortable with.  The state of MS is the worst offender there, as per the map.

Not sure what your friend's wife has to do with anything, other than your surly mood.  That's not on me, friend.  MS is the state abbreviation, so maybe take it up with them.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on November 27, 2024, 02:13:39 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/pdqpiFy.png)

Does this math work?  They are 6 over with bogeys and claw one back with a birdie but then have nearly 2 doubles.
Yes, it can work. 

First and foremost, your handicap is not your average score. It's actually not even based on your score relative to par. It's based on your score relative to the course rating and slope. This converts your raw score into something called a differential.  

But the first thing is that the handicap is not based on your average differential. It's based on the average of only your best 8 differentials out of your last 20 rounds. So you really only play better than your handicap about 20% of the time, not 50%. The average score for most golfers on 18 holes is usually about 3 strokes worse than your differential. 

So if the course rating were equal to par, a zero handicap would be expected to average about 3 over par. Which considering you've got 2.2 birdies (-2.2 strokes), 4.6 bogeys (+4.6 strokes), and 0.7 doubles (+1.4 strokes), according to Arccos data, a zero handicap averages 3.8 strokes over par. 

Close enough for government work, given that I don't know the course ratings a "typical" Arccos zero handicap is playing from. For example one of our local courses, Tijeras Creek, from the back tees is par 72 and course rating of 73.7. So a zero handicap actually shooting even par would be a round that's 1.7 strokes better than their handicap, and ~4.7 strokes better than their average. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 02:34:23 PM
You quoted the map of % of people who don't have passports - ie those who don't get out into the world much - ie those who spend their lives in a bubble of what and who they're most comfortable with.  The state of MS is the worst offender there, as per the map.
I didn't quote a map of anything I quoted your repeated petty responses to others - it's in English if that helps,what you were babbling about elswere who knows/cares
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 02:50:23 PM
I didn't quote a map of anything I quoted your repeated petty responses to others - it's in English if that helps,what you were babbling about elswere who knows/cares
You're really taking time to do this?  Okay then.  So shall I.

(https://i.imgur.com/fuHc9Pp.jpeg)

You quoted this, among others, of which the aforementioned map highlighting Mississippi was attached to and showing.  All of the images have mysteriously disappeared in the last 30 min somehow.  Interesting.

My snide comment, which isn't wrong, is one of the comments you quote.  I don't appreciate you including an emotional tug at heartstrings to try to make me into some bad guy, based on a state's abbreviation.  Be a grown-up.*
Care to retort?
.
.
*and your failing to act like a grown up is not for mourning the loss of someone close to you, but because you interjected it from out of nowhere
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 04:25:08 PM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:23:57 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652194/#msg652194)
Quote
So his point was that the inevitable happens?  Great point.
Hey guys, water is wet.
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:11:17 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652172/#msg652172)
Quote

Thanks for your contribution. Maybe focus on the point.
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 1101 PM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652112/#msg652112)
Quote

Easier to be set in your ways if you never expose yourself to other people.
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:02:49 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/in-other-news-18271/msg652166/#msg652166)
Quote

You're so skewed, it hurts.
  Enjoy your bubble.  I'm tired of being disappointed by you.
You have a particular faculty of realizing hallucinations
Now Cheese Dick this is my exact post @ 11:59 am today one page back - where is the word Mississppi mentioned that you are trying weave into  your bent explanation for your ASSHOLE responses to respectable posters. I'm not wasting time and band width analyzing  your continued belittling of others. So go play with yourself in your whoa nelly room and if you ask nicely maybe you can come sit at the big boy tale
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 27, 2024, 04:59:05 PM
Yes, it can work.

First and foremost, your handicap is not your average score. It's actually not even based on your score relative to par. It's based on your score relative to the course rating and slope. This converts your raw score into something called a differential. 

But the first thing is that the handicap is not based on your average differential. It's based on the average of only your best 8 differentials out of your last 20 rounds. So you really only play better than your handicap about 20% of the time, not 50%. The average score for most golfers on 18 holes is usually about 3 strokes worse than your differential.

So if the course rating were equal to par, a zero handicap would be expected to average about 3 over par. Which considering you've got 2.2 birdies (-2.2 strokes), 4.6 bogeys (+4.6 strokes), and 0.7 doubles (+1.4 strokes), according to Arccos data, a zero handicap averages 3.8 strokes over par.

Close enough for government work, given that I don't know the course ratings a "typical" Arccos zero handicap is playing from. For example one of our local courses, Tijeras Creek, from the back tees is par 72 and course rating of 73.7. So a zero handicap actually shooting even par would be a round that's 1.7 strokes better than their handicap, and ~4.7 strokes better than their average.
what he said
too much typing for me - I'd have had to search for this to copy&paste
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 27, 2024, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:23:57 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652194/#msg652194)Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:11:17 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652172/#msg652172)Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on November 26, 2024, 1101 PM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/rankings-ugh/msg652112/#msg652112)Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on Today at 09:02:49 AM (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/in-other-news-18271/msg652166/#msg652166)You have a particular faculty of realizing hallucinations
Now Cheese Dick this is my exact post @ 11:59 am today one page back - where is the word Mississppi mentioned that you are trying weave into  your bent explanation for your ASSHOLE responses to respectable posters. I'm not wasting time and band width analyzing  your continued belittling of others. So go play with yourself in your whoa nelly room and if you ask nicely maybe you can come sit at the big boy tale

You're overly emotional.  Deal with your grief in a more useful manner.  Maybe one that doesn't focus on someone totally unrelated to it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on November 27, 2024, 05:33:32 PM
So no place to go - just as i thought, Now go into your closet and do what it is you do best. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 28, 2024, 09:02:06 AM
I posted the map showing which states had levels of passport ownership, I think "MS" was lowest, by a point.  That makes sense as MS is consistently the poorest state in the US.  The rankings correlate pretty well with state personal income levels etc.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2024, 09:19:02 AM
I have a passport, don't need it.

25+ years ago, there was a good possibility I would be sent to China to help build 6 pork processing plants.
the company paid for the passport then, I've renewed it.

I've used it 6 times to visit Mexico beach resorts and one cruise with the daughters.
It's been at least 5 or 6 years and I have no plans to use it again.
I'll probably renew it again, just in case
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on November 28, 2024, 10:26:04 AM
It's useful to have I think, "just in case".  You might decide to have lunch in Paris, fly over, eat, and come back.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2024, 01:57:34 PM
NEWBERG, Ore. — With 23,000 wines tasted, reviewers selected an Oregon sparkling wine as the top choice on Wine Enthusiast’s “100 Best Wines of 2024.”

The team at ROCO Winery in Newberg is celebrating the top ranking for its ‘2013 RMS 10-Year Delayed Disgorgement Brut,’ which received a Wine Enthusiast score of 98 out of 100.


Reviewer Michael Alberty, who also works for The Oregonian, said he knew immediately in blind tastings that ROCO’s sparkling needed to be at the top.

“When I hit that wine, I remember thinking, ‘That’s one of the best sparkling wines I’ve had from the West Coast in a very long time,’” he said.

ROCO’s sparkling wine bested competitors from around the world, including those from Champagne, France. Winemaker, and ROCO founder, Rollin Soles said people in the wine industry tend to support each other.

Soles founded Argyle Winery before starting ROCO Winery in 2003. Rollins is known for his classic winemaking skills, and particularly, his talent with sparkling wines.

“This is the perfect region for making bubbles because it’s so cool close to that cool ocean out there,” he said.

Those wine tasting at ROCO Tuesday afternoon had already heard the big news and were thrilled to get a taste of the number one pick.

ROCO’s 1993 sparkling wine is not the only Willamette Valley wine to make the “100 Best Wines” list. CHO Wines’ 2018 Blanc de Noirs Sparkling Pinot noir (32) and Corollary Wines’ 2019 X-Omni Blanc des Blancs (36) made the list. Also, Domaine Serene’s 2015 Vintage Brut Sparkling (40).

According to the Willamette Valley Wineries Association (WVWA), this marks the first time all Willamette Valley wines featured on Wine Enthusiast’s list were sparkling.

“And everyone once and awhile,” Alberty said, “the old hands come along, like Rollin Soles, who has been doing this for a very long time. They want to remind you, the old hands can make great sparkling wines, as well, and that was certainly the case with this one.”


Soles believes the Willamette Valley is the top new region for sparkling wines in the entire world.

ROCO will be serving its top-rated sparkling wine during this weekend’s “Wine Country Thanksgiving” event, in which many wineries in the Willamette Valley and beyond are holding special tastings. It’s also available for sale online.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 28, 2024, 03:32:33 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/olA7txv.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on November 29, 2024, 10:27:14 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jLJOpaM.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on November 29, 2024, 07:18:33 PM
Passes + Runs:
240 Lagway
388 Raiola
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 07, 2024, 02:12:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/wK9fsOb.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 07, 2024, 02:33:23 PM
On the Bee Gees: a fun, innocent misconception (probably posted this before) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlQvlNw1024)

can start at 1:00
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 07, 2024, 09:16:00 PM
I re-listened to Rumours for the first time in a long time last night.  There are some great songs on that album.  There are also some absolute stinkers.

Definitely should not be on any lists for greatest album of all time. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 11, 2024, 01:02:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dc9QfRI.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 11, 2024, 01:03:18 PM
Oregon????
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 11, 2024, 01:15:48 PM
utee says Texas doesn't come close to Oregon
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 11, 2024, 01:29:09 PM
Not my favorite artist, but my list of greatest album of all time starts and ends with Billy Joel's the Stranger.

It had 4 top 40 hits (Only the Good Die Young, She's Always a Woman, Movin' Out, Just the Way You Are), and that doesn't include three of the best songs on the record, Vienna, Scenes from an Italian Restaurant, and its title track, the Stranger, all of which are in the pantheon of songs loved by Billy Joel's fans (not the gospel truth, but example 1 (https://www.vulture.com/article/best-billy-joel-songs-ranked.html), example 2 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2024/05/09/billy-joel-best-songs-ranked/73557523007/), example 3 (https://wmmr.com/listicle/billy-joel-best-songs-ranked/), example 4 (https://rateyourmusic.com/list/floflo79/121-billy-joel-songs-ranked-by-billy-joel-fans/)). It has two forgettable songs (Get it Right the First Time, and Everybody Has a Dream). So seven of nine tracks are winners, and arguably more than half are in the top 15 fan favorites of songs he ever wrote. I can't think of another record that has that hit rate.

Throw some at me...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 11, 2024, 02:20:26 PM
I always like Billy

Glass Houses was solid

never thought of Billy in the context of greatest of all-time albums
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 11, 2024, 02:55:08 PM
Not my favorite artist, but my list of greatest album of all time starts and ends with Billy Joel's the Stranger.

It had 4 top 40 hits (Only the Good Die Young, She's Always a Woman, Movin' Out, Just the Way You Are), and that doesn't include three of the best songs on the record, Vienna, Scenes from an Italian Restaurant, and its title track, the Stranger, all of which are in the pantheon of songs loved by Billy Joel's fans (not the gospel truth, but example 1 (https://www.vulture.com/article/best-billy-joel-songs-ranked.html), example 2 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2024/05/09/billy-joel-best-songs-ranked/73557523007/), example 3 (https://wmmr.com/listicle/billy-joel-best-songs-ranked/), example 4 (https://rateyourmusic.com/list/floflo79/121-billy-joel-songs-ranked-by-billy-joel-fans/)). It has two forgettable songs (Get it Right the First Time, and Everybody Has a Dream). So seven of nine tracks are winners, and arguably more than half are in the top 15 fan favorites of songs he ever wrote. I can't think of another record that has that hit rate.

Throw some at me...
Probably my favorite album of all time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_(Pearl_Jam_album)

Obviously there are some major hits on there, with Once, Even Flow, Alive, and Jeremy. Most of which are still getting played on contemporary rock/alternative radio today (Jeremy probably the only one commonly avoided due to subject matter), despite the album being over 30 years old. 

But it's one of those albums you can just pop in and press play, listen start to finish, and there's not a miss anywhere on it. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 11, 2024, 05:14:43 PM
Eat a Peach for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 11, 2024, 05:58:43 PM
utee says Texas doesn't come close to Oregon
Not exactly.  More like, when it comes to direct competition over a recruit that Oregon wants, nobody can outspend them.  Doesn't always mean they'll get their guy, not every recruit is solely swayed by NIL, but if it's strictly an NIL-based recruitment, then nobody's going to beat them.

Regardless, Oregon is clearly missing from that list, for whatever reason.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2024, 06:10:09 AM
I idly wonder for the 5 stars out there how much of the equation is NIL.  90%?  60%?  20%?  

It's not the whole deal of course, though if one offer is $2 mil and the other is half a mil, it becomes 99%.  

Imagine say UNLV comes up big from a massive donor and can offer $2 mil to 5 stars, would many of the bite?

But let's say the offers are from the Big Boys and the NIL monies are close but not the same, is that the final factor?  I know it depends.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2024, 06:31:36 AM
Georgia football LB Jalon Walker is the 2024 Butkus Award winner (https://ugawire.usatoday.com/2024/12/12/georgia-football-jalon-walker-butkus-award-winner-uga/)

I guess "they" vote on such things, like the Heisman?  I'm not sure I would know how to vote, I wonder how much effort the voters really attach to their decision for individual awards.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 12, 2024, 10:38:08 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0gsbMKS.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 12, 2024, 10:53:08 AM
couple ACC names on the list and ND

that's it

and a shit ton of folks watched Texas lose twice
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 12, 2024, 11:49:58 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bNhOJDe.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 12, 2024, 11:51:40 AM
couple ACC names on the list and ND

that's it

and a shit ton of folks watched Texas lose twice
Lots of people watched Georgia lose twice, too.

And just about nobody watched Nebraska lose 6 times.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 12, 2024, 12:02:00 PM
And even *I* didn't watch Purdue lose 11 times.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 12, 2024, 12:21:02 PM
[img width=399.991 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/bNhOJDe.png[/img]
collective funding = NIL??
or conference revenue?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 12, 2024, 12:48:53 PM
collective funding = NIL??
or conference revenue?
Those are estimates of the NIL collectives for each school and how much they funded players.

Might be one reason Oregon isn't showing at the top, the total of Phil Knight's contributions don't necessarily fall into a "collective."

Collectives also wouldn't include one-off deals a player might have, like Quinn Ewers' deal with Dr. Pepper, etc.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 12, 2024, 01:18:09 PM
OK, a bit surprised Iowa is on the list
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 13, 2024, 12:15:17 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/R8mvSbu.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 13, 2024, 12:23:52 PM
The idea of "High Speed Rail" in Spain and Italy, can be a little misleading.  If you average out the days that nobody's on strike and the trains are actually running, versus days when the trains aren't running at all, it's probably not much faster than Amtrak.  Similar for France but not quite as bad.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 13, 2024, 01:30:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/m74oEvo.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2024, 11:44:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ynaArtD.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 14, 2024, 11:51:44 AM
Those folks love themselves some I-talian food.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 14, 2024, 12:57:32 PM
I dunno gotta get creative with pasta.Every year my nephew Tim and his wife - nice lady have Thanksgiving. Her folks are Italian and they make from scratch pasta and a herbed tomato(from their garden) sauce. They get compliments don't get me wrong it's good,but it's freakin' Turkey Day. Tim absolutely has smoking meats down,so he'll alternate with the 2nd bird either being roasted or deep fried and all sorts of stuffing.I stop over like every other year and feel I have to testify to the tasty tomato/pasta dish. But they are such nice folks I gladly do it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2024, 02:15:24 PM
I don't know why say Nice would be worse than Paris.  The Parisians I know say Lyon is the capitol of French cuisine.  I have had some very good meals in Lyon.

Anyway, like all such lists, it heavily depends on the individual.  I personally would elevate Austin above NO, and probably Sonoma, even Boston gets high marks with me.  

I like places that are not overrun with tourists, I think that condition means they serve crappy tourist food to undiscerning tourists who will rave about it.

One of the best dinners I've had in the US was in Louisville, KY.  

Home - Bistro Le Relais (https://lerelaisrestaurant.com/)

Some others were at places owned by Jean Robert de Cavel in Cincinnati, but he has passed on now unfortunately.  His sole remaining place is still superb last time I was there.

Jean-Robert de Cavel - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Robert_de_Cavel)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2024, 03:09:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/XM9wBbR.png)

Kind of a neat chart I thought.  Dr Pepper?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 14, 2024, 03:10:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7pFIHJR.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 14, 2024, 03:13:52 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/SFFPeyw.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2024, 10:47:47 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/tzUPDae.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 15, 2024, 11:25:43 AM
My own rating would have France at the top, but the difference numerially between France at #8 and Greece is rather slight, probably inside any MoE.

The thing I like about "American cuisine" is that we adopt anything and everything from anywhere.  You don't find that in other countries.  I ate at a Mexican and a Japanese restaurant in France and they were distinctly mediocre.  My daughter complained that Vancouver had no BBQ nor Mexican places worth spit.  They have a ton of excellent Asian of course.

I think even in Atlanta I can find everything from Ethopian to Turkist to Persian to Indian to Asian readily in addition to fried chicken and grits.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 15, 2024, 11:42:39 AM
Surprised to see Poland on the list. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 15, 2024, 11:43:29 AM
my argument is that the USA USA USA should be #1

because, we have great examples of all 14 on the list!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 15, 2024, 11:45:11 AM
Surprised to see Poland on the list.
Polish perogies

pairs well with potato voldka martinis
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 15, 2024, 01:22:28 PM
Polish perogies

pairs well with potato voldka martinis
Eh. I've stated my thoughts on pierogi. Take that stuff to Italy and they'll wonder why you think a shitty version of ravioli is a thing.

That said, my heuristic is that the less temperate your climate, the worse your cuisine will generally be. Merely an access-to-ingredients and growing season thing. Add to that Poland being a historically poor country, and you get things like wrapping potato in pasta being a "delicacy"...

That said, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Poland has some really phenomenal stuff that I'm just not familiar with. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 15, 2024, 01:43:13 PM
Great Sausages a buddy use to get all sort of smoked meats from a Polish Meat shop in the Old Town. Much like all the Central - Eastern Euro Contries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 15, 2024, 01:46:43 PM
my argument is that the USA USA USA should be #1

because, we have great examples of all 14 on the list!
Correct you can still get Livestock brains in Ports along the mighty Mississippi if you know how to ask for it
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 15, 2024, 01:49:29 PM
Polish perogies

pairs well with potato voldka martinis
Reminds me i haven't had a bottle of Luksusowa in quite a spell
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 15, 2024, 01:53:53 PM
Great Sausages a buddy use to get all sort of smoked meats from a Polish Meat shop in the Old Town. Much like all the Central - Eastern Euro Contries
No disagreement... 

But it's not like sausage and smoked meats are particularly unique to Poland... And not like they're the most flavorful versions.

I mean, Italian sausage is delicious. Greek sausage (loukaniko) is amazing. Both versions are FAR more flavorful than Polish sausage. 

Pretty much every culture has their version of sausages, smoked meats, and dumplings... Are we saying that Polish sausage, smoked kielbasa, and pierogi are enough to put Poland in the top 20?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 15, 2024, 01:57:27 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/SFFPeyw.png)
Bwahahaha.  Trying way too hard.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 15, 2024, 05:56:13 PM
Correct you can still get Livestock brains in Ports along the mighty Mississippi if you know how to ask for it
get em @ most butcher shops and meat lockers here
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MaximumSam on December 15, 2024, 06:18:53 PM
Can't say I know anything about Polish food, but they at least get a good marketing department, polish sausage, polish pickles, polish meatballs. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 15, 2024, 06:22:36 PM
Can't say I know anything about Polish food, but they at least get a good marketing department, polish sausage, polish pickles, polish meatballs.
I did pick up some recipes that I haven't yet tried for beet soups and such. 

I really should learn more about the food of my people :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 15, 2024, 06:26:17 PM
If you’re looking for a soup this fall or winter that’s comforting, filling, and slightly tangy, then give this Polish sauerkraut soup a try. Traditionally known as Kapusniak, it’s a tasty combination of tender pork ribs simmered in a rich broth, combined with the tangy sauerkraut and hearty potatoes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2024, 09:21:49 PM
So video game cover boy Donovan Edwards finishes his 4-year career having never led UM in season carries, yards, or TDs.

Makes sense.  And I thought the CU guy was the hype guy.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 16, 2024, 09:35:45 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/SFFPeyw.png)


Must be pork fans.  

I can't take any map seriously that lists Texas as "Not BBQ."  You can get some great BBQ in Louisiana and Arkansas too.  BBQ is the one thing I haven't seen cajuns put over rice. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2024, 09:48:59 AM

Must be pork fans. 

I can't take any map seriously that lists Texas as "Not BBQ."  You can get some great BBQ in Louisiana and Arkansas too.  BBQ is the one thing I haven't seen cajuns put over rice. 
Heh, I like things over rice.  I think one can get really really good BBQ in most states.  I had pretty decent real pulled pork in Scotland.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 16, 2024, 09:52:01 AM

Must be pork fans. 

I can't take any map seriously that lists Texas as "Not BBQ."  You can get some great BBQ in Louisiana and Arkansas too.  BBQ is the one thing I haven't seen cajuns put over rice. 
Like I said, trying way too hard. 

Oh and Texas has you covered on the BBQ and rice thing-- there is literally a restaurant in Houston named "Brisket & Rice."  It's a Texas BBQ/Asian fusion restaurant, and among other things, they serve a "brisket fried rice."


(https://i.imgur.com/pwZCRDx.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 16, 2024, 09:54:30 AM
nope!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 16, 2024, 09:59:31 AM
Heh, I like things over rice.  I think one can get really really good BBQ in most states.  I had pretty decent real pulled pork in Scotland.
I mean, sure you can.  You can get really good Italian in Texas, too.

It's just the odds of a BBQ place outside of key BBQ-producing areas being good, are pretty low.  I had good BBQ in exactly one restaurant in California. So of course it's possible.  But I also had very bad BBQ in numerous restaurants in California.  So the frequency of occurrences of "good BBQ" in "bad BBQ states" is extremely low.  Odds are that any BBQ restaurant you try, outside of key BBQ producing areas, isn't going to be very good.  Shoot even here in Austin I'd say it's about 50-50 that you're going to get average BBQ if you don't know the right places to go.

Why did I keep eating bad BBQ in California, you might ask?  It's because my local colleagues kept on trying to impress me.  I was polite to them but finally just had to beg them to stop.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2024, 10:03:05 AM
Fair enough.  It probably should reflect percentages rather than some absolute.  So, in Maine, 1% of BBQ places are "decent", meaning average for Texas.  Maybe it's 0.1%.

In Atlanta, it's probably about 25% in my experience that a place is "good" in my book, and probably 73% that it's "decent" or better.  We tried "Heirloom BBQ" recently which consistently gets ranked number uno here, but it was for me in the good category.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 16, 2024, 10:09:58 AM
Fair enough.  It probably should reflect percentages rather than some absolute.  So, in Maine, 1% of BBQ places are "decent", meaning average for Texas.  Maybe it's 0.1%.

In Atlanta, it's probably about 25% in my experience that a place is "good" in my book, and probably 73% that it's "decent" or better.  We tried "Heirloom BBQ" recently which consistently gets ranked number uno here, but it was for me in the good category.
Oh yeah, for sure.  Totally agree on that.

Like I said, you can find good Italian in Austin.  But the percentage of good Italian restaurants in Austin, is much much lower than the percentage of good Italian restaurants in NY or Chicago.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2024, 10:13:33 AM
I'd guess one can find good Italian food in most larger cities, and probably at a decent percentage if one excludes chains.

We took a lady from Hong Kong to several local Chinese places and she said they were all authentic, from different regions.  We took her to Fox Bros. BBQ and she ordered ...

... chicken salad.  It was not what she expected, at all.  We took her again and I suggested she try the brisket.

Ages ago I took my Dad to a NC BBQ place we liked a lot and he ordered a grilled cheese, and said it was the best GC he'd ever had.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 16, 2024, 10:19:33 AM
Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. 

(https://i.imgur.com/ZcBlGyR.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 16, 2024, 10:24:26 AM
The cooking thread is over there --->

Just kidding.

I always do dry rub on ribs, it's just my preference.  But a couple of weeks ago I had 3 racks of pork spares from Costco and there were only a handful of us eating, so I did 2 racks my normal way, but 1 rack I did with a tangy Asian sticky rub and glaze.  It turned out really tasty, I'll probably do it again some time.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 16, 2024, 10:30:36 AM
Yeah, I do a dry rub and then finish with sauce. Family prefers 'em saucy. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 16, 2024, 10:35:02 AM
my brother better have something on the smoker wednesday
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 16, 2024, 10:38:45 AM
my brother better have something on the smoker wednesday
I've got almost 3 weeks off starting on Thursday, I'll probably do a brisket sometime Friday/Saturday before the Longhorns football game Saturday afternoon.  And if I'm doing a brisket then I might as well do some ribs, some sausage, and maybe a pork butt.  We're going camping after Christmas so having extra food won't be an issue...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 16, 2024, 10:45:38 AM
Really good Italian here.

Carmelo's Italian Ristorante | Punta Gorda Italian Restaurant (https://www.carmelosristorante.com/)

But it's not the best I've been to.

Italian Restaurant | Trattoria Stefano | Sheboygan, Wisconsin (https://www.trattoriastefano.com/)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 16, 2024, 10:56:06 AM
There doesn't seem to be a high % of BBQ restaurants in Louisiana.  The ones there are, are usually pretty good, I think. 

But then, maybe I just know the ones everybody knows is good and so they talk about them more often and I don't know about other ones which aren't very good. 

Or maybe I just have a low threshold of acceptability for BBQ.  Dunno.  I've definitely had bad BBQ.

But not in Texas, that I recall.  To my point, most everywhere I went in Texas was on the advice of other people, so there might be other joints that aren't good I never tried.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2024, 11:04:15 AM
I suspect in Texas a place with middlin' Q doesn't last long.  Here we'd have a lot of folks who don't know the diff.

I had some pretty not good up on Buford Highway a while back that surprised me.  Buford Highway is ugly but a foodie paradise.

I might not know really good Italian from just good, I like'em both I reckon.  This place is nice.  

La Grotta Ristorante Italiano (https://www.lagrottaatlanta.com/)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 16, 2024, 11:17:46 AM
My wife told me a neighborhood restaurant in Paris doesn't last if it's not really good (out of the tourist district).  I've yet to have anything but very very good food in Paris away from tourists.  I recall being on a tour in Sorrento that the bus dropped us off next to a restaurant and told us that was the place to go.  We took a walk and found a very very good place away from the crowds.  I had spaghetti, I wanted something "simple" so I could taste the flavors, she had a small pizza.  Do we get anything that good in the States?  It's pretty rare I think, but can happen.  Maybe I can tell the diff.

The Indian places near us have Indians working in the kitchen and service staff.  The Japanese noodle place near us has Mexicans in the kitchen, they do a nice job.  I tip them special in December aside from the bill.  The Korean place has Koreans.  The Italian place I like a lot near us has Mexicans in the kitchen.  

Pasta da Pulcinella (https://pastadapulcinella.com/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAvP-6BhDyARIsAJ3uv7Yux3e7Yp4vmzzjPVyPKUqnCqaUq3WIHR0Nd9KyxCJzsKWMJQgRSTMaAggSEALw_wcB)

The lady who owns it is Asian.  

The Mexican places all have .... Mexicans.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 18, 2024, 07:55:32 AM
I've got almost 3 weeks off starting on Thursday, I'll probably do a brisket sometime Friday/Saturday before the Longhorns football game Saturday afternoon.  And if I'm doing a brisket then I might as well do some ribs, some sausage, and maybe a pork butt.  We're going camping after Christmas so having extra food won't be an issue...
my brother is getting a nice vacuum bag sealer for Christmas

all the better to be able to send BBQ home with me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 19, 2024, 08:27:49 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html

Weird. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 19, 2024, 10:37:58 AM
brisket, pork ribs, and sausage last night with smoked beans

plenty of leftovers for the next 3 or 4 daze

tried some nasty mead list night - powerful stuff
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 19, 2024, 10:39:45 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html

Weird.
Seems decent to me
I'd expect UNL to be in the top 10
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 19, 2024, 10:39:52 AM
Says LSU is ranked 13th.  Same all-time program ranking LSU was given by cfbdatawarehouse.com according to their criteria, back when they were still a thing.  I think I got the same result when I punched some metrics in ftbob's database, back when it was a thing....13th.  Not surprising your relative $ value and your long-term success ranking would be pretty close. 

"We're number 13!  We're number 13!" doesn't have much of a ring to it.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 19, 2024, 10:41:02 AM
dat's why ya just chant, "SEC, SEC, SEC"
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 19, 2024, 10:47:02 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html

Weird.

So it's basically just revenue multiplied times four, then with some fudge factor added or removed depending on the school. 

Quote
The list is reflective of the current enterprise value of each program, starting with a base revenue multiple of four for all institutions, and then adjusting the multiple for variables, including conference affiliation, estimated NIL spend, school subsidies, number of alumni and other factors that can catalyze future revenue growth and profitability. 


Which means if you scroll through the list, it's MOSTLY just a list of each school's revenue in order, with a few shifts up or down. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 19, 2024, 11:08:43 AM
shift up or down depending on debt
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 19, 2024, 11:13:34 AM
So it's basically just revenue multiplied times four, then with some fudge factor added or removed depending on the school.


Which means if you scroll through the list, it's MOSTLY just a list of each school's revenue in order, with a few shifts up or down.
It looks wonky in some cases because some schools report capital improvement project fundraising as "revenue" when it clearly isn't.  And other schools keep it as a separate line item because it's quite obviously not "revenue from standard operations."

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 19, 2024, 11:15:25 AM
So it's basically just revenue multiplied times four, then with some fudge factor added or removed depending on the school.
Believe it or not, that's how most businesses are valued. Mine is that way.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 19, 2024, 11:29:57 AM
Believe it or not, that's how most businesses are valued. Mine is that way.
No, it makes sense. 

However IMHO it makes it a bit of a "nothing" article because if the valuation methodology is that obvious, might as well just look at a list of schools by revenue and know you're going to be close enough for government work. 

After all, it's not like anyone reading that article is using it as a decision-making tool to invest their own private equity in college sports :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on December 19, 2024, 11:33:41 AM

After all, it's not like anyone reading that article is using it as a decision-making tool to invest their own private equity in college sports :57:


Is it a get-rich-quick scheme?  I'm in.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 19, 2024, 11:36:15 AM
No, it makes sense.

However IMHO it makes it a bit of a "nothing" article because if the valuation methodology is that obvious, might as well just look at a list of schools by revenue and know you're going to be close enough for government work.

After all, it's not like anyone reading that article is using it as a decision-making tool to invest their own private equity in college sports :57:
There are other factors too. How many people watch the games. How many tickets get sold. Merchandise, etc. But mostly, it's about revenue - most of which is TV.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 19, 2024, 12:51:12 PM
To me a thing that could not be sold has no value.   
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 19, 2024, 01:42:04 PM
To me a thing that could not be sold has no value. 
Not so fast my friend.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/private-equity-looks-to-buy-in-to-college-sports.html?tpcc=PRO%7Cnewsletter%7Cmarketing%7Cstocksatnight%7Cjason%7C20241219
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 20, 2024, 10:26:08 AM
To me a thing that could not be sold has no value. 
It could rent itself out for 99 years maybe.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 20, 2024, 02:02:49 PM
Best Christmas movies/specials?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 20, 2024, 02:15:06 PM
I love (in no particular order):

A Christmas Story. SFIrish doesn't understand this one. Maybe it's more relatable for dudes.
Die Hard. Obviously.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the animated one).
A Charlie Brown Christmas
Ted Lasso, Season 2, Episode 4 (Carol of the Bells).
Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer
A Nightmare Before Christmas 
Does Lethal Weapon count?
 

For whatever reason, Elf and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation never really hit for me (I really liked the original, not sure why the Christmas version isn't higher on my list). I haven't seen It's A Wonderful LIfe in a long time. I liked the Holdovers, but I'm not sure I would put it in my top list. We used to watch The Polar Express every year with the kids, but I can't say I love it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 20, 2024, 02:17:45 PM
The Princess Bride
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 20, 2024, 02:35:24 PM
Curious. I've never heard it referred to as a Christmas movie before. Great movie.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 20, 2024, 06:50:55 PM
Curious. I've never heard it referred to as a Christmas movie before. Great movie.
It's kind of a secret Christmas movie.  Look around Fred Savage's room, and it's definitely Christmas.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 09:18:45 AM
In no order:

A Christmas Story
Die Hard
Christmas Vacation
Charlie Brown
Rudolph
Santa Claus is Coming To Town
Love Actually
Home Alone
It's A Wonderful Life
The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

And then the movies we like to watch around Christmas:

LOTR trilogy
Harry Potter series
Star Wars marathons

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on December 21, 2024, 09:22:16 AM
Lord did I hate “Love Actually.”

I recall enjoying “bad Santa“ but I haven’t watched it as a real life adult, and I’m not sure if that’s a good idea
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 09:26:15 AM
I can understand why people don't like Love Actually.  I just personally find it to be clever, and uplifting.  Bill Nighy as the aging rock star is among my favorite performances by any actor in any movie, ever.

I absolutely loathed Bad Santa. Juvenile and trite.  IMO.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 21, 2024, 09:29:36 AM
In no order:



You must have an order in the rankings thread.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 09:30:27 AM
You must have an order in the rankings thread.
I'm a rebel.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 21, 2024, 10:54:37 AM
Serious question. Do you really consider Die Hard a Christmas movie, or are you just trolling?  It seems like this topic cropped up about 5-10 years ago, for no reason whatsoever, and it just seems so silly.  

I will not die on this hill, but Die Hard is absolutely not a Christmas movie for the following reasons: 
- It was released in July, obviously not Christmas season. 
- Christmas was not a central part of the plot, only a small element of the plot. 
- it’s not traditionally shown around Christmas, at least on the stations that I watch.  
- It was never promoted or themed as a Christmas movie. 
- It’s not really family friendly.  You wouldn’t sit down and watch it with your 5 year old kids.  “Yippie Kiyeah Motherfucker” 
- None of the sequels were even remotely associated with Christmas. 

We could go down the list of lots of movies that could be a Christmas movie, but somehow this one always makes a lot of conversation. What about Gremlins?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 21, 2024, 10:56:31 AM
On a side note, they released “ A Christmas Story Story” last year, and it’s a really decent movie with most of the cast of the original.  I really enjoyed watching it, and thought it was well written and blended elements of the original well with the new. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on December 21, 2024, 10:59:00 AM
On a side note, they released “ A Christmas Story Story” last year, and it’s a really decent movie with most of the cast of the original.  I really enjoyed watching it, and thought it was well written and blended elements of the original well with the new.
Yeah, my wife and I watched it as well. 

I wouldn't call it a great standalone movie; I'm thinking it was largely fan service to nostalgic old people like us... But for that, it was very well done. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 11:02:42 AM
Gremlins is a Christmas movie for sure.

And of course so is Die Hard. 

The main plot of the movie can only occur because of Christmas.  John McClane is only there to foil the burglary, because he's come to visit his family for Christmas.  The Christmas party occurring at Nakatomi Tower is also important in setting up some of the characters and the drama that later unfolds.  And if it's not set at Christmastime, we don't get this iconic imagery:

(https://i.imgur.com/osRgWml.png)

I mean, I really don't get why some folks seem offended when Die Hard is named a Christmas movie.  You can have your Christmas movie definition and I'll keep mine, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 21, 2024, 11:09:31 AM
Oh I’m not offended in the least. I just can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. 

But I’m leaning towards trolling.  
🤣
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 21, 2024, 11:09:53 AM
Yeah, my wife and I watched it as well.

I wouldn't call it a great standalone movie; I'm thinking it was largely fan service to nostalgic old people like us... But for that, it was very well done.
That’s exactly what it is. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 21, 2024, 11:12:06 AM
We watched Christmas Vacation last night before the Indiana Bowl.

CV >>> Indiana Bowl
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 21, 2024, 11:12:47 AM
Gremlins is a Christmas movie for sure.

And of course so is Die Hard. 

The main plot of the movie can only occur because of Christmas.  John McClane is only there to foil the burglary, because he's come to visit his family for Christmas.  The Christmas party occurring at Nakatomi Tower is also important in setting up some of the characters and the drama that later unfolds.  And if it's not set at Christmastime, we don't get this iconic imagery:

(https://i.imgur.com/osRgWml.png)

I mean, I really don't get why some folks seem offended when Die Hard is named a Christmas movie.  You can have your Christmas movie definition and I'll keep mine, thank you very much.
Actually, you could have the exact same movie if you replace Christmas with 3-4 other plot elements. July 4th party, for instance, would work just as well. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on December 21, 2024, 11:14:28 AM
I can understand why people don't like Love Actually.  I just personally find it to be clever, and uplifting.  Bill Nighy as the aging rock star is among my favorite performances by any actor in any movie, ever.

I absolutely loathed Bad Santa. Juvenile and trite.  IMO.


It helps that I watched the second one when I was quite juvenile and trite. 

as for the first, it probably didn’t help that I had heard for a long time that it was very good. And I just didn’t like it at all. That’s it, I’m very happy other people do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 11:19:08 AM
Actually, you could have the exact same movie if you replace Christmas with 3-4 other plot elements. July 4th party, for instance, would work just as well.

Nobody travels cross-country to be with estranged family and loved ones for the 4th of July. 

There's no particular reason It's a Wondferful Life has to occur at Christmastime.  People get introspective and suicidal all through the year.

There's no reason Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol needs to occur at Christmas.  The ghosts of New Year's past present and future would work just fine.  Arguably better, since people tend to review their history and their future when a New Year begins.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 21, 2024, 11:19:53 AM
Serious question. Do you really consider Die Hard a Christmas movie?  
didn't ask me but, NOPE
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 21, 2024, 11:21:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/MZhehoi.png)

Xmas Movie
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 11:22:52 AM
Not trolling, I consider it a Christmas movie.  No offense intended but your draconian definitions and boundaries for what constitutes a Christmas movie, need not apply to me, I'm not compelled to abide by them. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on December 21, 2024, 11:23:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/MZhehoi.png)

Xmas Movie

didn't ask me, but nope. :)

It was fun though.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 21, 2024, 11:25:54 AM
I almost always have fun here
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on December 22, 2024, 12:46:54 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=8988180447915282&set=a.105576696175746&type=3

BREAKING NEWS: Study Confirms Die Hard is More of a Christmas Movie Than Rudolph!

In a shocking turn of events, researchers at the Yuletide Institute for Cultural Studies (YICS) have released a groundbreaking study proving that Die Hard qualifies as a Christmas movie more than Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

The study analyzed over 1,000 holiday films based on five criteria:

1. Presence of Christmas Themes

2. Amount of Holiday Music

3. Family Reconciliation Subplots

4. Christmas Eve Setting

5. Use of Christmas Decorations as Plot Devices

Lead researcher, Dr. Holly Evergreen, explained, "While Rudolph is a charming tale, it scored surprisingly low on Christmas ambiance due to its lack of Christmas Eve stakes and overly generalized 'holiday cheer.' Meanwhile, Die Hard scored off the charts with its heavy use of Christmas songs, a plot centered on a Christmas party, and Bruce Willis literally using wrapping tape to save the day."

Key Findings:

Die Hard features 21 Christmas trees, while Rudolph has only 4.

The soundtrack of Die Hard includes “Let It Snow” and “Winter Wonderland,” compared to Rudolph’s singular titular song.

Bruce Willis shouts “Ho-ho-ho” (albeit sarcastically) after defeating a bad guy, adding bonus points.

Dr. Evergreen also noted that Die Hard depicts family reconciliation on Christmas Eve—a hallmark of the holiday genre—whereas Rudolph, "while adorable, is more of a tale about workplace discrimination."

Public Reaction:
The results have ignited fierce debates online.

“Die Hard has Christmas, explosions, and Alan Rickman in a Santa suit. What else do you need?” – @HolidayHero

“Rudolph is a classic! How dare you compare it to a movie about glass-filled feet!” – @RedNoseLoyalist

YICS researchers hinted that their next study will determine whether Home Alone or It’s a Wonderful Life is the ultimate Christmas movie, with Elf as the dark horse contender.

For now, one thing is clear: Die Hard isn’t just a Christmas movie—it’s apparently the most Christmas movie. Yippee-ki-yay, holiday fans!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on December 22, 2024, 01:08:21 AM

Batman Returns was another "Christmas movie"

(https://preview.redd.it/anyone-else-have-batman-returns-as-their-favorite-christmas-v0-6a6g7j6mj58c1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=fc13d462560ac12de8b58fdda71a48c509788fa2)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on December 22, 2024, 01:29:28 AM
Nobody travels cross-country to be with estranged family and loved ones for the 4th of July. 

There's no particular reason It's a Wondferful Life has to occur at Christmastime.  People get introspective and suicidal all through the year.

There's no reason Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol needs to occur at Christmas.  The ghosts of New Year's past present and future would work just fine.  Arguably better, since people tend to review their history and their future when a New Year begins.
You are wrong~Whatever~Ole'
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 22, 2024, 10:50:44 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/vvCTD8A.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 24, 2024, 11:43:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/iUM7MtB.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 24, 2024, 12:54:55 PM
Batman Returns was another "Christmas movie"

(https://preview.redd.it/anyone-else-have-batman-returns-as-their-favorite-christmas-v0-6a6g7j6mj58c1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=fc13d462560ac12de8b58fdda71a48c509788fa2)
I'm down with this. And Catwoman. Particularly Catwoman.
I don't even think it's that good a movie, but I don't know any straight dude within about 20 years of my age who didn't think Catwoman was all that and more. She was so amazing that Hollywood greenlit one of the stupidest movies in the history of cinema to try to take advantage of all of us. 
Meow.
(https://i.imgur.com/YCBAOv9.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on December 24, 2024, 01:02:06 PM
Anything Michelle Pfeiffer is a Christmas Movie.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ogj639Q.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 24, 2024, 01:02:36 PM
I dislike Cats, but I could make an exception for her
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 28, 2024, 09:38:31 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/mzzD2HG.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 28, 2024, 11:34:18 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/rtxsJQD.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 28, 2024, 05:34:38 PM
I don't do takeout

but, if I did, I wouldn't tip
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 28, 2024, 05:47:19 PM
Agreed.
You deliver?  Tip.
I do all the work?  No tip.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 28, 2024, 06:07:42 PM
I'll just continue to eat at the diner

no takeout, no delivery
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2024, 02:15:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dpZnGfM.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2024, 02:18:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/sSZNcsQ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2024, 02:20:12 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QhktNoP.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on December 31, 2024, 02:25:16 PM
Happy to say I've been to six of these. Curiously, not the Grand Canyon--the closest one to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on December 31, 2024, 02:34:59 PM
My own list would be quite different of course.  I've seen the S of L, Grand Canyon, Eiffel Tower, and Stonehenge.  It would be an interesting contemplation.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on December 31, 2024, 02:56:56 PM
Been to 6 of the 15.  Can say that only one of the rest is on my bucket list and that is the Taj Mahal
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on December 31, 2024, 03:16:33 PM
I'll take 7 and then 5, and just stay there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on December 31, 2024, 05:03:36 PM
I've been to Disney world - wish  I wouldn't

been to the grand canyon - cool but not a huge deal
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 01, 2025, 07:29:10 AM
I think the Grand Canyon is hard to view from the ground.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 01, 2025, 08:43:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/4PEWO8t.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 02, 2025, 10:03:57 PM
AC/DC, Bolin, & Rush

(https://i.imgur.com/4s0NAGC.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2025, 06:15:53 AM
Lots of great right there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: CatsbyAZ on January 03, 2025, 11:36:08 AM
Mapping average credit card debt by State - from Visual Capitalist (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-average-credit-card-debt-in-every-u-s-state-2024/). Wisconsin has the lowest. Alaska the highest. Despite its significantly lower cost of living, Nevada has a higher average than California, and of course I'm wondering if this is due to household proximity to gambling. Notice Texas, Florida, and Georgia's are noticeably higher for their surrounding region, but those are "higher performing states" with a lot more "bigger spenders."

(https://i.imgur.com/ueJ5zKG.jpeg)


Here's the chart I like, ranking states according to expected number of months to pay off that debt - by least # of months:

(https://i.imgur.com/I5D5D5K.png)

by most # of months:

(https://i.imgur.com/2cZBuSC.png)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 03, 2025, 11:42:33 AM
Mapping average credit card debt by State - from Visual Capitalist (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-average-credit-card-debt-in-every-u-s-state-2024/). Wisconsin has the lowest. Alaska the highest. Despite its significantly lower cost of living, Nevada has a higher average than California, and of course I'm wondering if this is due to household proximity to gambling. Notice Texas, Florida, and Georgia's are noticeably higher for their surrounding region, but those are "higher performing states" with a lot more "bigger spenders."
IMHO this data is pretty meaningless to me. The numbers are all within such a narrow range that I don't know why we should reach all that many conclusions. 

And I'll bet if you map it as percentage of average annual income, it would get even tighter. As is evidenced by the fact that there's a distinct correlation between shorter time to pay off and higher state average annual income, and longer time to pay off and lower state average annual income. 

It actually suggests that a lot of the states with lower average debt are in worse financial positions because they're poorer and it'll take longer to pay off that smaller debt. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2025, 12:09:58 PM
Heh. I'm at the Florida average every month, until the next month.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on January 03, 2025, 12:36:28 PM
Aerosmith Rocks is an underrated album. Not as good as Toys in the Attic, but very good rock and roll.

Throw in Tom Petty's debut and Hotel California, and that's some pretty good music. But damn, Rush 2112

Lots of good stuff left off of this list, too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on January 03, 2025, 12:51:08 PM
Heh. I'm at the Florida average every month, until the next month.
That's an issue. My credit card balance on my credit report looks ridiculous but it is paid off every month.  

Not sure enough of us do that to move the average up, but not sure. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 03, 2025, 12:53:23 PM
Yeah, we pay everything with the one AA card and rack up miles like mad. I think only one of my monthly bills comes out of checking anymore.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 03, 2025, 02:52:50 PM
79% of U.S. adults "rate Facebook as poor or not so good at handling misinformation on its social media platform."

79%
U.S Adults
81%
Democrats
84%
Republicans
77%
Independents
(https://www.allsides.com/news-source/qunnipiac-university-poll-media-bias)Qunnipiac University Poll
(https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/bias-center.png) (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/qunnipiac-university-poll-media-bias)
2021 · Survey Data  (https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3826)


Good grief.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 03, 2025, 03:48:09 PM
Even birthdays can be misinformation 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2025, 09:20:53 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7SWyX6q.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2025, 10:04:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/gYDAX37.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 05, 2025, 10:30:06 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FgqlHiK.png)

Population density in Egypt.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 05, 2025, 10:57:30 AM
Context is good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 07, 2025, 10:18:23 AM
College football rankings: Bleacher Report reveals early top 25 for 2025 (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-bleacher-report-reveals-early-top-25-for-2025-243617113/#2577984)

Click bait, take the current rankings and finagle them a bit.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 07, 2025, 11:06:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0nB1XfR.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 07, 2025, 11:10:47 PM
Cool graphic.  NVidia is king of the mountain right now for sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 07, 2025, 11:53:39 PM
Context is good.
Except in college football :88:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 08, 2025, 08:53:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/nKQvbQe.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 08, 2025, 09:16:29 AM
Combined with an inability to run the ball, this is why we didn't have nice things.

Ranking SEC wide receivers with the most drops during the 2024 college football season (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/ranking-sec-wide-receivers-with-the-most-drops-during-the-2024-college-football-season-243691328/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHrZ-NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWe3ptb8V1Q6pd-RRT4BnUeyHch8huyS4iKCbWGZiUyhn7iire88ZU6xww_aem_oCYspl0-3PkeuW6xmmFHWQ)


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 19, 2025, 08:56:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QiQQAPg.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on January 19, 2025, 09:12:49 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QiQQAPg.png)
Just use an AI for these, ffs.  Take the previous year's final poll and alter it by some low x-percent.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 19, 2025, 09:22:05 PM
Brad Crawford can't spell AI
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 20, 2025, 11:01:15 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ae9Z97Y.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 27, 2025, 05:01:39 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/kylZy5Z.png)

AI helps.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 28, 2025, 08:02:09 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/kylZy5Z.png)

AI helps.
No AI needed. That's the Lincoln Park Zoo in the foreground.


(https://i.imgur.com/6GTBJpP.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 28, 2025, 08:04:19 AM
The photo looks like AI to me, the buildings are not right, I thought.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 28, 2025, 08:09:18 AM
The buildings are correct.

That is Chicago.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 28, 2025, 08:19:47 AM
it depends on your perspective
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 28, 2025, 08:29:23 AM
Chicago is a beautiful city. It used to be a great city.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 28, 2025, 01:34:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ymmr7Uw.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 28, 2025, 01:35:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0hx2OrJ.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on January 28, 2025, 08:36:33 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QiQQAPg.png)
The preseason Florida State bandwagon has been deserted, and instead we have some guzzling of the Ruhl Aid. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on January 28, 2025, 10:33:55 PM
Columbus ......... L 17-21

Pretty impressive
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 29, 2025, 07:38:54 AM
I am pondering why humans are so apparently infatuated with "ratings".  In part, it means letting someone else do the work, I suspect.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 29, 2025, 08:36:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/JT7bQrr.png)

States with buildings higher than any natural feature.  Also a map showing the states of FL, LA, and ILL.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 29, 2025, 09:26:33 AM
That's an interesting map, but without a legend, its meaning is unclear. :)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 30, 2025, 04:43:04 PM


The most famous brand from each state(https://i.imgur.com/cOVoPnG.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on January 30, 2025, 04:45:32 PM

The most famous brand from each state(https://i.imgur.com/cOVoPnG.png)
LOL @ Florida. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 31, 2025, 08:27:12 AM
Tropicana...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 31, 2025, 08:35:40 AM
Several I never heard of, and a few more I didn't know were from that state.  I might argue with a couple, but whatever.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 31, 2025, 09:03:28 AM
Wait, a taco joint is the most famous brand from... Wyoming??

(https://media.tenor.com/NUqO3kNe3ucAAAAM/danny-de-vito-no.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 31, 2025, 09:09:39 AM
Wyoming is  highly regarded for its tacos and Thai cuisine.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 31, 2025, 09:11:09 AM
Wyoming is  highly regarded for its tacos and Thai cuisine.
Jackson has some great restaurants.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 31, 2025, 10:18:16 AM
Jackson is kind of a "hole" in Wyoming, a place not like the others there.  I like Wyoming a lot, in summer.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on January 31, 2025, 12:59:09 PM
Wait, a taco joint is the most famous brand from... Wyoming??

(https://media.tenor.com/NUqO3kNe3ucAAAAM/danny-de-vito-no.gif)



They are the ones where you get the tacos delivered by a monkey that dresses like a cowboy, while riding a dog like a horse. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHbf5V31IaM
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on January 31, 2025, 01:14:31 PM

The most famous brand from each state(https://i.imgur.com/cOVoPnG.png)
How could Gino's possibly be more famous than Tudor's Biscuit World for West Virginia? They operate out of Tudor's Biscuit World, they don't have nearly as many locations, they don't have any locations outside of WV, and they aren't talked about nearly as often in or out of the state.

The Marshal HC didn't offer OSU's players all the Gino's Pizza they could eat if they transferred. He said Tudor's Biscuit World.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E7UD2SY0Q9A

Gino's is clearly the little brother. 
(https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/WTwRXT4GtkBOUBfVtW3Ghw/o.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on January 31, 2025, 01:19:17 PM
Allsups and Gino's are the only two I never heard of.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on January 31, 2025, 01:29:50 PM
Zappos and Great Harvest are new to me as well.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on January 31, 2025, 02:49:41 PM
Allsup's is a chain of gas stations/convenience stores in New Mexico and West Texas.  Like many other gas stations they have some food options that sit in a heated case, and their specialty is a fried burrito with beans and ground beef, or shredded beef, or chicken, and sometimes green chile-- they're pretty much the same thing as a chimichanga.  They're so gross and yet so wonderful all at the same time.

(https://townsquare.media/site/157/files/2021/07/attachment-Allsups-in-Lubbock.jpg?w=630&q=75)

(https://i.imgur.com/Nn8VhRy.png)




Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 02, 2025, 08:29:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/lZgCfU5.png)

I can't run 40 m that fast, probably could barely have done it back in the day.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 02, 2025, 09:37:45 AM
I might make it in 30-40 minutes
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 02, 2025, 09:43:55 AM
A fast walk is about 15 minutes.  A normal walk is about 20.  These days it's 1600 m, usually, which in 4 minutes means obviously 60 seconds per 400 meters which means 15 seconds per 100 meters.  I guess I could have managed a 13 second hundred 50 years ago.  And then been done.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 02, 2025, 09:52:21 AM
A fast walk is about 15 minutes.  A normal walk is about 20.  
yup, 30-40 minutes for me
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 02, 2025, 10:06:48 AM
After Tuesday I should be able to walk a mile.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 02, 2025, 10:21:19 AM
Sioux City native and Olympian Shelby Houlihan set a new Razorback Invite record with an 8:31.56 time in the 3000M race, claiming first place in her first competition following a four-year ban from the sport.

(https://i.imgur.com/8vh0VV5.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 02, 2025, 10:22:06 AM
As we age, walking is one of the best things we can do.  Obviously.  But often "we" don't do much.

Folks get a handicapped parking sticker because they are over weight and can't walk far.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 02, 2025, 10:23:55 AM
I don't run. 

Walking, hiking, sure. Running? Nope. 

With all my training over the last 2 1/2+ years I can probably jog at least a 5K now without stopping at a "moderate" pace. Maybe even a 10K. But I'll never find out, because...

I don't run. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 02, 2025, 10:42:25 AM
I've never run that far because nothing dangerous has ever chased me that far.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 02, 2025, 10:47:57 AM
Running for me is pretty boring, I never have liked it even when I was an OK runner.  I had a GF for a while who was a runner and I'd run with her often as not.  She'd get made because I could outrun her with fairly minimal effort, mostly because I was 6'4" and 180 pounds, I wish I was closer to that now.

I only run some now because of baseball.  It's my incentive.

I'm also "on the wagon" now except weekends, and travel.  I managed no alcohol last week pretty well until last night when I had some.  I'm hoping to drop some weight and save some money but we have a lot of travel upcoming.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 02, 2025, 11:33:25 AM
I had a few beers at the "I Hate Winter" party last night
and a few belts of moonshine to warm up

(https://i.imgur.com/ouxscJI.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 08:14:37 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/KMFNDy2.png)

I have not dined at a TB in many decades, I do idly wonder how they continue to exist.  I can eat a fast food burger "OK", it is what it is, the fries can be OK.  But TB?  Do they have anything comparably decent?

Maybe they do, now.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 03, 2025, 08:48:06 AM
In spite of having multiple authentic Mexican joints with drive thrus, we also have not only Taco Bel but also Taco Time and Del Taco. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 08:48:48 AM
I consider Taco Bell terrible - I suppose they have a menu item or 3 that might be tasty - I'm not going to find out

Taco Johns is not good, but much better than the Bell
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 08:49:19 AM
Dubbed the "Marathon Man," Belgian runner Stefaan Engels ran the marathon distance every day for a year, totaling 9,569 miles (1,5401 km)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 08:52:17 AM
I just idly wonder who dines at Taco Bell in numbers enough to keep the afloat.  

I understand why folks dine at McDs or BK or Wendy's or KFC, they aren't inedible, usually.  I get why folks buy Dominos pizza.  

TB is the on I would choose only as a last resort, I was starving and there was nothing else for 50 miles.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 08:56:46 AM
I took the dog on a walk yesterday to the post office and back... weather was very nice

30-minute journey - I suppose I could walk at a bit of a pace for 30 minutes if pushed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: NorthernOhioBuckeye on February 03, 2025, 10:06:47 AM
I just idly wonder who dines at Taco Bell in numbers enough to keep the afloat. 

I understand why folks dine at McDs or BK or Wendy's or KFC, they aren't inedible, usually.  I get why folks buy Dominos pizza. 

TB is the on I would choose only as a last resort, I was starving and there was nothing else for 50 miles.
It's funny that I was out Saturday and had not yet eaten anything. It was probably about 12:30 - 1:00 pm and I was getting a little hungry. Driving towards home, there was a Taco Bell and I thought I haven't tried that in a few years, so what the heck. After scouring the menu, I tried a 5-layer burritto and it wasn't terrible. Either that or I was so hungry I didn't care. Not sure I will try it again any time soon.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 10:31:09 AM
Yeah, I can see that, I might try it again sometime just to see, and I'm glad to hear "it wasn't terrible".  That's fairly high praise for fast food.

I still have a notion TB is the worst of the bunch, maybe I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 03, 2025, 10:43:07 AM
Well, one answer is that McD's and BK and Wendy's and all the other fast food burger places are in direct competition for burgers. 

Taco Bell is by far the biggest and most well known fast food Mexican joint. If I want a burger, I've got lots of options. If I'm not in the mood for a burger, and I want a taco, the options get slim really quickly. Even out here in CA where there's enough of a market to support a competitor (Del Taco), that's still only two major chains. Burgers we've got all of the above, including In n Out, Carl's Jr, Jack in the Box, and probably two or three that I'm missing. But I think Taco Bell and Del Taco are the only major taco-specific chains. 

Similar with KFC. They're the biggest and most well know fried chicken joint. I mean, you have the rise of Chick-fil-A (pretty much only sandwiches) and Raising Cane's (pretty much only chicken fingers), but if you're just looking for classic fried chicken, the options get slim really quickly. I know this is different in the South, and you've got a lot more variety for fried chicken, but there's not all that much here out West. 

So these niche genre restaurants may succeed partially because they're carving out and dominating the niche, instead of just trying to be yet another fast food burger joint. 

As for Taco Bell? Yeah, it's pretty mediocre. But I also can't remember a time in my life that I've gotten a Crunchy Taco Supreme and it's EVER been worse than the normal level of mediocre. Much like McDonald's, you can trust TB to be consistent. That said, I don't really eat there except like you when I have literally no other options. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 10:46:23 AM
Down south we have a lot of chicken joints like Popeye's and Zaxby's and Bojangles as well as CFA.

10 major fried chicken chains in the US, ranked by popularity - KTVZ (https://ktvz.com/stacker-lifestyle/2024/04/30/10-major-fried-chicken-chains-in-the-us-ranked-by-popularity/)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 10:48:58 AM
My own fast food ranking, e.g., if I have a choice, I use this ranking.

1.  CFA
2.  Burger King
3.  Wendy's
4.  Bojangles
5.  Zaxby's
6.  McDs
7.  TB maybe, it's really at the bottom.

We almost never dine at any of them unless traveling.  I like McDs OK for breakfast.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 03, 2025, 10:54:34 AM
Well, one answer is that McD's and BK and Wendy's and all the other fast food burger places are in direct competition for burgers.

Taco Bell is by far the biggest and most well known fast food Mexican joint. If I want a burger, I've got lots of options. If I'm not in the mood for a burger, and I want a taco, the options get slim really quickly. Even out here in CA where there's enough of a market to support a competitor (Del Taco), that's still only two major chains. Burgers we've got all of the above, including In n Out, Carl's Jr, Jack in the Box, and probably two or three that I'm missing. But I think Taco Bell and Del Taco are the only major taco-specific chains.

Similar with KFC. They're the biggest and most well know fried chicken joint. I mean, you have the rise of Chick-fil-A (pretty much only sandwiches) and Raising Cane's (pretty much only chicken fingers), but if you're just looking for classic fried chicken, the options get slim really quickly. I know this is different in the South, and you've got a lot more variety for fried chicken, but there's not all that much here out West.

So these niche genre restaurants may succeed partially because they're carving out and dominating the niche, instead of just trying to be yet another fast food burger joint.

As for Taco Bell? Yeah, it's pretty mediocre. But I also can't remember a time in my life that I've gotten a Crunchy Taco Supreme and it's EVER been worse than the normal level of mediocre. Much like McDonald's, you can trust TB to be consistent. That said, I don't really eat there except like you when I have literally no other options.
I wonder how much fast casual is eating into their market.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 03, 2025, 11:01:13 AM
I wonder how much fast casual is eating into their market.
Do you mean places like Red Robin?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 03, 2025, 11:19:52 AM
My own fast food ranking, e.g., if I have a choice, I use this ranking.

1.  CFA
2.  Burger King
3.  Wendy's
4.  Bojangles
5.  Zaxby's
6.  McDs
7.  TB maybe, it's really at the bottom.

We almost never dine at any of them unless traveling.  I like McDs OK for breakfast.
To an extent, you've proven my point. You've lumped 7 highly disparate chains with wildly different menus into a single ranking. 



If I really wanted to psychoanalyze you, CD, what I'd suggest is that maybe you're just really not into Mexican food. From your own descriptions of your upbringing, it doesn't seem like your parents really branched much out of traditional American / southern food--i.e. didn't you say you never even had pizza until college? Did you ever really eat any Mexican food growing up?

So I might posit that TB is at the bottom of your list not because TB is terrible (although, admittedly it's not great), but because there will just be about 1 in 200 times in your life when you're in the market for fast food that you want a taco more than you want a burger or some variant of fried chicken. 

Whereas for people who grew up in Southern California, of basically any race, every once in a while there's just a taco craving, and a burger just ain't a taco. Obviously I didn't grow up in SoCal, but the variety of cuisine available in Chicago in the 80s and through the 90s was probably wider than that of Georgia in your childhood/teens, and on top of that my parents actually encouraged variety of cuisine. So I grew up eating Taco Bell. 

I personally don't eat Taco Bell because we eat a lot of tacos at home. We do Taco Tuesday basically every week. When it's just my wife and I, it's often fish tacos, sheet pan shrimp fajitas, etc. But when we have the kids, we frequently make just the traditional ground beef crunchy tacos. So I get my taco fix. There are times where I want a damn good carne asada burrito, and there's one joint around that I'd rather drive the 5 miles to get their carne asada burrito than go to the Taco Bell that's literally walking distance from my house. Taco Bell steak burritos just don't hold a candle to Sabrosada. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 11:31:01 AM
I like Mexican food quite a bit, we have several options near us that are quite good (not fast food) and we make tacos at home fairly often.  I get your point that there are few TB alternatives when it comes to fast "Mexican".  The last time I ate at TB I resolved never to dine there again except under duress.  It well could be they are as good as McDs, sort of a consistent mediocrity of OKness.

Fried chicken is messy to fix at home, air fried chicken isn't very good, to me.  But, if I want some here, I'll walk to a nonFF joint near us, particularly Mukja, the Korean place.  Mary Mac's Tea Room is pretty good too.  The only FF places near us are CFA, Panera, and Chipotle.  

There is a pretty good place in the food hall called "Pretty Little Tacos".

Oxtail Birria Tacos | Pretty Little Tacos | Atlanta (https://www.prettylittletacos.com/)

I forgot about Tin Lizzy's, it's OK.  Not our fav.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 03, 2025, 11:32:16 AM
A lot of fried chicken chains operate out of gas stations around here. Ernie's, Krispy Krunchy and Chester's. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 03, 2025, 12:11:21 PM
I like Mexican food quite a bit, we have several options near us that are quite good (not fast food) and we make tacos at home fairly often.  I get your point that there are few TB alternatives when it comes to fast "Mexican".  The last time I ate at TB I resolved never to dine there again except under duress.  It well could be they are as good as McDs, sort of a consistent mediocrity of OKness.

Fried chicken is messy to fix at home, air fried chicken isn't very good, to me.  But, if I want some here, I'll walk to a nonFF joint near us, particularly Mukja, the Korean place.  Mary Mac's Tea Room is pretty good too.  The only FF places near us are CFA, Panera, and Chipotle. 

There is a pretty good place in the food hall called "Pretty Little Tacos".

Oxtail Birria Tacos | Pretty Little Tacos | Atlanta (https://www.prettylittletacos.com/)

I forgot about Tin Lizzy's, it's OK.  Not our fav.
Yeah, as I've said before I almost never eat FF any more. It seems like prices have gotten insane, and to me the value isn't there. I'd rather pay more for something that's objectively better, or not eat it at all. We cook at home pretty much every night, and I can always scrounge up something around the house for lunch. 

For the most part FF is generally road trip food. And for obvious reasons, I'm not likely to hit up Taco Bell on a road trip...


(https://media.tenor.com/o7QarDwPYQsAAAAM/dumb-and-dumber-dumb-and-dumber-gif.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 12:14:23 PM
supposedly getting a Raising Cane's sometime in the future
I assume it will fare like Popeye's a year or so ago.
Huge lines the first few weeks.......... no traffic a year later
I don't expect them to be in business a couple years from now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 12:17:31 PM
My own fast food ranking, e.g., if I have a choice, I use this ranking.

1.  CFA
2.  Burger King
3.  Wendy's
4.  Bojangles
5.  Zaxby's
6.  McDs
7.  TB maybe, it's really at the bottom.
I really don't care for Burger King.  Goes to the bottom of my short list.
Wendy's would be my choice of your list.
I've not tried Bojangles or Zaxbys
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 12:24:15 PM
We enjoy dining out fairly often here.  There are interesting options around, some not too pricey.  Otherwise we pretty much share cooking.

I had $100 i gift cards to STK to be used by March 31, so we went Friday night.  It's not a place we go to much because it's quite pricey.  The food was pretty solid at least.    I'd rather go 4 times to a decent place at maybe $60 per than one time to STK.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 03, 2025, 01:18:07 PM
We really only eat fast food when we're road tripping.  Or, late at night after a concert or something when we're hungry, don't want to scrounge in the fridge, and there's nothing else open.  

I don't really consider Taco Bell to be Mexican, I guess it's sort of Mexican-adjacent.  But it's fine for what it is.  I ate a lot of it in college because it was super cheap.  I could get two tacos and two burritos for $2.36 plus tax.  I guess it's still fairly cheap compared to what has happened to other fast food prices.  When a burger combo at a fast food joint approaches or exceeds $10, I'm definitely going to look elsewhere for a quick meal.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 03, 2025, 01:23:56 PM
We really only eat fast food when we're road tripping.  Or, late at night after a concert or something when we're hungry, don't want to scrounge in the fridge, and there's nothing else open. 

I don't really consider Taco Bell to be Mexican, I guess it's sort of Mexican-adjacent.  But it's fine for what it is.  I ate a lot of it in college because it was super cheap.  I could get two tacos and two burritos for $2.36 plus tax.  I guess it's still fairly cheap compared to what has happened to other fast food prices.  When a burger combo at a fast food joint approaches or exceeds $10, I'm definitely going to look elsewhere for a quick meal.
Shh....

Burger combos here in SoCal already exceed $10. If you're letting people know that's not the case in Austin... well...

...that's not going to help your "don't move here" message :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 03, 2025, 01:31:10 PM
No, my phrasing could be misinterpreted, my apologies.

It was meant to read as "Now that burger combos at fast food joints approach or exceed $10..."

The Big Mac combo is around $9 and that's at the cheaper end of the spectrum.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 03, 2025, 01:57:25 PM
Combo meals in France are called "menu".  It's rather confusing to me.  There is a McDs across from the hotel where we're staying, I threaten to eat there.  My wife rolls her eyes, as usual.  We leave a week from today, hard to believe.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 03, 2025, 05:01:03 PM
Yup, my standard order at the McDonald's drive-thru in France was:

Menu Big Mac avec bière s'il vous plaît
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 03, 2025, 05:16:15 PM
Do you mean places like Red Robin?
Chipotle. That’s what I meant. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 03, 2025, 05:23:05 PM
I really don't care for Burger King.  Goes to the bottom of my short list.
Wendy's would be my choice of your list.
I've not tried Bojangles or Zaxbys
Burger King is always dirty. I keep expecting to see a rat or cockroach scamper across the dining room.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 03, 2025, 05:35:29 PM
last time I stopped for Burger King......... in a hurry and on the road,,,,

I took a couple bites and tossed the burger out the window

that was 10+ years ago - not going back anytime soon
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 04, 2025, 08:41:26 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/6AuOT2I.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 08:17:08 AM
I wouldn't say scorching for Fick, but it's hot for sure, and he just lost his GM and best recruiter to USC.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 05, 2025, 09:30:35 AM
I wouldn't say scorching for Fick, but it's hot for sure, and he just lost his GM and best recruiter to USC.
My gut is that he is safe at 8-4. 6-6/7-5 are dicy. Does that feel right to you? 

if it’s worse than 8-4, they definitely need to look better doing it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 09:46:22 AM
My gut is that he is safe at 8-4. 6-6/7-5 are dicy. Does that feel right to you?

if it’s worse than 8-4, they definitely need to look better doing it.
Tough to say, given this:


(https://i.imgur.com/VnSNP57.png)

So,

W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L

That's how I'm looking at it right now. The seat goes from hot to scorching hot after that 4 game losing streak, and he's not allowed on the bus leaving Minnesota. If he can somehow win 6, he gets that 4th year, which looks a little easier at this time.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Au7bVk.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 12:11:03 PM
The Best Fast Food French Fries, Ranked (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/the-best-fast-food-french-fries-ranked/ss-AA1qo5aU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6bfbc708f5ad4180e499f1cf90402ffc&ei=9)

Some of these I've never had. I'd put Culver's at the top. For regionals, Portillo's takes the prize. Anyone ever had Shake Shack? I have not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2025, 01:10:30 PM
In n Out fries are notoriously terrible.  Even the InO fanbois usually admit that.

McDonald's burgers are not that great, but their fries are the absolute tops for fast food, IMO.  Hot, crispy, the right amount of salt.  Really good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 01:12:17 PM
I was unimpressed with InO fries for sure.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 01:14:54 PM
The Best Fast Food French Fries, Ranked (https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/the-best-fast-food-french-fries-ranked/ss-AA1qo5aU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6bfbc708f5ad4180e499f1cf90402ffc&ei=9)

Some of these I've never had. I'd put Culver's at the top. For regionals, Portillo's takes the prize. Anyone ever had Shake Shack? I have not.
Culver's are great.

In an Out are a waste of time, as are Wendy's.

I think when I went to Shake Shack I got a burger and a shake, and skipped the fries.  I'm a big salty > sweet, but if a place has good shakes, I will swap the fries for the shake every time.  Culvers isn't here, so I'll do both for the one time a year I get it.  Fuddruckers was another place that had great shakes and horrible fries
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2025, 01:24:05 PM
Fuddrucker's fries, at least around here, were the potato wedge style. They undercooked them often, but when they were actually cooked through, I thought they were pretty good.

The thing I loved about Fuddrucker's was the topping bar/salad bar which included hot queso.  I'd dump a ton of that on my fries, and some on the burger.

Sadly the last one around here closed a couple of years back.  I don't know where any are left.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 01:37:59 PM
Fuddrucker's fries, at least around here, were the potato wedge style. They undercooked them often, but when they were actually cooked through, I thought they were pretty good.

The thing I loved about Fuddrucker's was the topping bar/salad bar which included hot queso.  I'd dump a ton of that on my fries, and some on the burger.

Sadly the last one around here closed a couple of years back.  I don't know where any are left.
Both by us left, yes, I did love the toppings bar.

My main memory of the couple times I had their fries were that they were undercooked, underseasoned potato wedges.  They were also the one fast food place that slapped the buns on the flattop as well.  I sometimes wouldn't put anything on them.  I know they had their haters, and I probably haven't had one since my early 20s, but I always loved their burgers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 05, 2025, 01:43:03 PM
Downtown Madison got a Fuddrucker's during my time on campus. Some friend raved about it. 

The one time I went, seemed not great. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2025, 01:45:10 PM
Yup I loved their burgers too.  And their shakes.  

They were heavily in the rotation in middle school, high school, and sometimes in college when I could afford it.  Since then, it's been pretty rare, but my son did like it so we went to the one nearby a couple of times per year.  Until it closed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 01:49:09 PM
Fudds is out of Illinois. There are some down here.

And there is one in Austin, TX.

Austin - W. Slaughter Ln. | Fuddruckers® (https://www.fuddruckers.com/austin-slaughter-lane)

Nothing close to me, which is just fine.

(https://i.imgur.com/fBKfp67.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2025, 02:00:07 PM
Slaughter Lane?  That would involve me driving through downtown and crossing the river.  Might as well be in South America.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 02:03:37 PM
Yup I loved their burgers too.  And their shakes. 

They were heavily in the rotation in middle school, high school, and sometimes in college when I could afford it.  Since then, it's been pretty rare, but my son did like it so we went to the one nearby a couple of times per year.  Until it closed.
We always visited family in Raliegh in the 90s, and would go.  There was none around us.  They put one in Flint, MI, which was on the way home from up north, so we always stopped there.  Moved to Pittsburgh in 2006 and there was one here.  I know I went once, but it would have been right around then.  It closed shortly thereafter, so I would guess 2006-07 was the last time I ate there.

I think if I could pick a burger and a shake from anywhere, In and Out still wins, because the burger is the main part.  But Fuddruckers burgers were solid, and their shakes were great.  I liked Shake Shack, but it felt very stressful, like Seinfeld Soup Nazi.  Granted I went to one in Chicago, and it was packed, but you better know what you want, you better not have any questions, you better understand the lingo, and you aren't going to get a table, so just order it to go
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on February 05, 2025, 02:04:05 PM
Dotty's is the right place for a burger in Madison, at least close to campus, but it's not fast food.

If Fickell can make it out with 5 losses through next year's schedule that would be significant improvement.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 02:05:53 PM
Dotty's is the right place for a burger in Madison, at least close to campus, but it's not fast food.

If Fickell can make it out with 5 losses through next year's schedule that would be significant improvement.
Yeah, we've all got a burger place we love that nobody else knows about.  Let us flyover states discuss our shitty chains left coaster!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 05, 2025, 02:28:58 PM
Yeah, we've all got a burger place we love that nobody else knows about.  Let us flyover states discuss our shitty chains left coaster!
One of my favorite Madison memories was landing in town at like 10:30 in the morning for a reunion of sorts and immediately taking the uber there. 

I overheard the person two tables over ordering and realized that they were there for the same event and we had known each other a little in college. So naturally I popped over and we caught up over burgers and cheese curds. As the basket of curves got low, she looked down and said “yeah we’re gonna need another one of these”.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 05, 2025, 02:32:41 PM
In n Out fries are notoriously terrible.  Even the InO fanbois usually admit that.
Yep. I fit that description, and I admit that readily. I don't like them Animal Style either. 

I usually order them well done so they're a little more crispy, but then they're bordering on overdone. 

Fudds is out of Illinois. There are some down here.
Even when I was growing up in the Chicago burbs I don't think we went more than once or twice. 

Oddly enough, there used to be one maybe 2.5 mi from my house here, but it's no longer listed on their web site, so I guess it closed without me ever knowing (or ever trying to dine there). 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 05, 2025, 02:34:41 PM
I'm definitely excited to take my son to Purdue in April for a college tour... Definitely headed to the Triple XXX. 

Will drive from WLaf to Ann Arbor to see UM the next day... I've only been to AA once so I don't know the town at ALL. Any advice on "must stop" places to eat? Bearing in mind that all we'll possibly have available is dinner the night before the campus tour, and then lunch before we drive back to Chicago. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 02:35:40 PM

I overheard the person two tables over ordering and realized that they were there for the same event and we had known each other a little in college. So naturally I popped over and we caught up over burgers and cheese curds. As the basket of curves got low, she looked down and said “yeah we’re gonna need another one of these”.
Sounds like she was looking for curds, and you were looking at something else
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 02:37:13 PM
I'm definitely excited to take my son to Purdue in April for a college tour... Definitely headed to the Triple XXX.

Will drive from WLaf to Ann Arbor to see UM the next day... I've only been to AA once so I don't know the town at ALL. Any advice on "must stop" places to eat? Bearing in mind that all we'll possibly have available is dinner the night before the campus tour, and then lunch before we drive back to Chicago.

Ann Arbor has changed frighteningly much since I was there.  The university keeps taking more lands with tax abatements, and trendy restaurants and breweries keep popping up, and then closing.

The UM hospital just bought out the best breakfast place in town
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 05, 2025, 02:44:46 PM
Huh. The Fuddruckers that I was thinking of that just closed 'recently' was 4 1/2 years ago :smiley_confused1:

https://www.yelp.com/biz/fuddruckers-lake-forest-2?sort_by=date_desc
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 05, 2025, 03:00:29 PM
Huh. The Fuddruckers that I was thinking of that just closed 'recently' was 4 1/2 years ago :smiley_confused1:

https://www.yelp.com/biz/fuddruckers-lake-forest-2?sort_by=date_desc

The recession in 2008 buried a lot of them in Illinois and Covid finished them off. There are none in Illinois now.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 05, 2025, 06:48:22 PM
went to a Fuddrucker's in Omaha with the kids about 20 years ago

it was OK, probably won't be back
I think it's still there so some folks like it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on February 05, 2025, 07:05:32 PM
Yeah, we've all got a burger place we love that nobody else knows about.  Let us flyover states discuss our shitty chains left coaster!
Damn. That one kinda stung. I"m not that much of an elistist; I do have some knowledge of fast food, even some of the regional stuff.

My recollection is that McD's has pretty solid fries--probably the best thing on the menu. Of course there are so many MCD's that you're bound to sometimes get a soggy bunch. I'm partial to the Five Guys fries--and I like their cajun seasoning (but I'm the only one in the family who likes the seasoning, I don't get it all that often). I used to like Jack-in-the-Box curly fries, but it's been more than 20 years since I've had them. I remember enjoying Whataburger back when I had extended stays in Tejas. But I couldn't tell you a thing about their fries now. I like the Popeyes cajun fries. Culvers is a solid bet most of the time. Better than McD's for fries? Not sure (but for everything else I am sure). Agree on the various reviews of In-n-Out. I still get their fries because: carbs/salt/fat! But they aren't anything to write home about. Still, I'd rather have their burger and poor fries than McD's great fries and garbage burger. I'm sure I've been to Fuddruckers, and I'm sure that it didn't make a big enough impression for me to need to go back.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 05, 2025, 07:45:06 PM
I liked Five Guys & Five Guys fries.
Yes, the Cajun seasoning was a must 

Unfortunately,  it didn't last long here.

I don't search them out when on the road. 

Haven't been to one in years 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 05, 2025, 08:32:18 PM
I heard that Whattaburger was not very good, but haven't tried it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 05, 2025, 09:05:12 PM
I'm definitely excited to take my son to Purdue in April for a college tour... Definitely headed to the Triple XXX.
Never went there, always kinda wanted to. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 05, 2025, 09:08:33 PM
Jenny Dell seemed to like it

(https://i.imgur.com/M987T6w.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 05, 2025, 09:13:41 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/s1TVkCG.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 05, 2025, 10:44:45 PM
I heard that Whattaburger was not very good, but haven't tried it.
I've only been once.  It was unmemorable.  I was surprised to find out that there is a battle among Texans between it and In and Out.  To me, it was in and out in a landslide.  Id take a Daves single over Whataburger.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 05, 2025, 11:29:46 PM
A lot of mustard on a Whataburger.

In and Out has the worst fries.  If you're ranking 5 places, they finish 6th.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 05, 2025, 11:33:31 PM
I've only been once.  It was unmemorable.  I was surprised to find out that there is a battle among Texans between it and In and Out.  To me, it was in and out in a landslide.  Id take a Daves single over Whataburger.
Whataburger is great.


In n Out is meh.


Nuff said.

ETA: I will say that the quality at Whataburgers can vary greatly by location, while In n Out is consistently mediocre across all locations I've ever tried, so I guess they have that going for them, which is nice.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 06, 2025, 07:37:41 AM
I didn't expect much from In n out in Cali, but was surprised at how terrible the fries were

I didn't try the burger - kids said the burgers were very good
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 09, 2025, 09:45:24 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NU8foty.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on February 09, 2025, 01:13:36 PM
my youngest keeps talking about doing a french fry blog (of which I'm sure there are some number of them).   so subjective of course,  her rankings would largely be well outside of fast food places.

whataburger's edge (to me) has been its friendly hours (often 24h).   they've been on a growth march with their new(er) PE owners.   marching their way into MO/TN/AL/GA.   Bojangles also making a push north too.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 09, 2025, 02:52:23 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/e2T8zYW.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 09, 2025, 04:31:11 PM
Bojangles tastes like an off-brand potato chip.  Not directly, but that quality.  Lay's?  Nah, gimmie that Golden Flake or whatever the hell.  It's like if normal fast food is too good for someone, they hit up Bojangles.

*I've also only been there like twice, neither of which was in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on February 09, 2025, 04:33:07 PM
I like biscuits aka breakfast at bojangles
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 09, 2025, 04:34:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/e2T8zYW.jpeg)
Every graphic showing UCLA as an all-time leader in just emphasizes what an underperforming program it's always been.  

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 09, 2025, 04:34:32 PM
I like biscuits aka breakfast at bojangles
IT'S ALL JUST FOOD, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BREAKFAST FOOD!  :88:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 09, 2025, 04:36:18 PM
Specifically, what I remember about it is the chicken was SUPER dry and seemed to be thin, like they sliced their chicken breasts length-wise to make 2 from 1.

I believe Chik-fil-A does this or did this with their breakfast items.  Regular chicken sandwich?  HUGE, thick chicken breast.  Breakfast chicken?  Anorexic joke.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 09, 2025, 04:55:25 PM
We stayed at a Hilton in Boston, their breakfasts were not very good at all, so we went to a breakfast place around the corner which was nice.

They knew how to do breakfast well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 10, 2025, 09:10:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/z5JwFK5.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 10, 2025, 09:50:29 AM
as with most NFL 2 deeps

a lot changes in 4-8 years
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 10, 2025, 01:32:42 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ENCd6PF.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 10, 2025, 03:05:53 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/03hmkK4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 10, 2025, 08:55:59 PM
I had to laugh at this.  In a sport most of us SECers don't care about....
(https://i.imgur.com/MAbagdy.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on February 10, 2025, 09:23:03 PM
as with most NFL 2 deeps

a lot changes in 4-8 years
That’s one of those funny one that is all about the data presentation.

On the one hand, there are a lot of 2 and 3 stars on NFL rosters/Super Bowl lineups. On the other, the relative percentages weight heavily to the blue chippers.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 10, 2025, 09:41:42 PM
yes, but not as heavily as most folks would think
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 10, 2025, 11:16:05 PM
I had to laugh at this.  In a sport most of us SECers don't care about....
(https://i.imgur.com/MAbagdy.jpeg)


How would you rank the NCAA sports in the order that the SECers care about them? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 11, 2025, 10:28:44 AM

How would you rank the NCAA sports in the order that the SECers care about them?
#1 Football
#2  Football-spring game
#3  Football Recruiting
#4  Football Coaches being fired/hired
#5  Baseball
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 11, 2025, 10:31:21 AM
Wendy's was my favorite for a long time, and then in the 1990's our local one closed and nobody knew why....the place stayed consistently packed.  It was then transformed into a McDonalds, which we already literally had two less than a half mile apart.  One in the mall, and one in the superwalmart.  

I didn't eat at Wendy's for a long time, but when I did I noticed their food changed.  Or maybe I changed?  Either way, I don't care for their stuff anymore.  

Whataburger is my favorite now, now In/Out anywhere near here to compare.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 11, 2025, 10:40:18 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ENCd6PF.jpeg)
List makes no sense, even just by comparing teams with 2 games this week.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 11, 2025, 10:41:52 AM
#16 Wisconsin at #7 Purdue not listed. Hmm.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 11, 2025, 10:44:23 AM
I had to laugh at this.  In a sport most of us SECers don't care about....
TV ratings say otherwise
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 11, 2025, 10:44:59 AM
#16 Wisconsin at #7 Purdue not listed. Hmm.
Neither is #11 MSU at Illinois.  But unranked UCLA at Illinois is.

That was sort of my point, on its face it makes no sense
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 11, 2025, 10:45:49 AM
Whataburger is my favorite now, now In/Out anywhere near here to compare. 
Never had Whataburger.

Culver's is my favorite of the widely available brands.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2025, 02:02:22 PM
We had lunch at Culver's in North Port.  I was thinking about this thread as aside from that place, I'd never heard of the brand before.  I think I had a fish sammich which was ... tolerable, not memorable obviously.  It's adjacent to the motel in which we lodge.

My ambition is to cut WAY back on alcohol, WAY back, and attend both camps next year.  I'm doing OK so far.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 11, 2025, 02:29:30 PM
Get a burger when you go to Culver's.

(https://i.imgur.com/gYtxeVz.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 11, 2025, 03:06:53 PM
I've cut back on alcohol

not WAY back
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 11, 2025, 03:10:25 PM
Same.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 11, 2025, 03:13:51 PM
Same
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 11, 2025, 03:19:13 PM
only 1 growler and a handful of Buds at the Super bowl party

no shots
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2025, 03:36:01 PM
My wife's goal for me is no alcohol Mon-Thu and then LESS Fri-Sun, which is pretty reasonable, but I get an allowance for travel, but I did OK in Boston.  Now in France, that could be tougher.  We have a late flight and I'll probably avail myself of something at the Delta lounge, and on the plane.  I used miles for "Premium" seats, we'll see if that is much of a thing.  Then they downgraded us coming back to E Comfort.:smiley_confused1:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on February 11, 2025, 03:40:27 PM
I've cut back on alcohol

not WAY back

Same.

Same


Quitters.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 11, 2025, 03:42:58 PM

Quitters.
My wife has a hat that says "corks are for quitters".

She means it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 11, 2025, 03:43:32 PM
sounds like a "wife's goal"

I would just say, "Good luck with that"
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 11, 2025, 03:44:44 PM
Her goal has a nice quid pro quo for me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 11, 2025, 03:54:50 PM
only 1 growler and a handful of Buds at the Super bowl party

no shots
So ya had a growler how many ounces? then a handful so 5,perhaps. Ya cutting back,Ha I bullshit myself with similar logic 🍺
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: ELA on February 11, 2025, 04:06:49 PM
I've cut way back since my NASH diagnosis.  The biggest thing I've noticed is how much better my sleep is, just between having none and having a couple beers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 11, 2025, 04:08:01 PM
64 ouncer
I've got large hands
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 11, 2025, 04:40:17 PM
Ha!  Ole~
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 21, 2025, 07:42:47 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/9DL8vFe.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 21, 2025, 09:12:14 AM
Yup, there's a reason Texas has been recruiting heavily in the state of Georgia.  And going head-to-head against UGA is expensive!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 21, 2025, 09:32:00 AM
being rich & arrogant has it's advantages
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 21, 2025, 09:34:22 AM
I had a notion recruits now would be less local than before, but with UGA that seems not to be the case so far.

I don't know if other programs are seeing it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 21, 2025, 09:59:40 AM
Seghesio Family Vineyards



(https://i.imgur.com/UlUQNr4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 23, 2025, 12:21:42 PM
Last fall, the restaurant Giglio in Lucca, Italy, made a surprising request: to have its Michelin star removed from the 2025 guide. The Tuscan eatery had been awarded the star in 2019 for its traditional Italian food with a modern flair.
Then came new clientele with heightened expectations. The owners, who desired a more relaxed environment, had come to think of the award as a burden.
For more than a century, the Michelin Guide has functioned as a culinary lodestar for chefs the world over.
Now, some chefs say the prestigious award can become a gilded cage for restaurants loaded with financial and creative drawbacks.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 23, 2025, 01:25:12 PM
don't think I've ever been to a place with a star

probably won't ever - not on my list
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 23, 2025, 04:34:08 PM
I wouldn't put it on any list either personally.  I've talked about dining at some in the past.  There is one here that is really quite good I think, star or no, but we found that out before it had a star.  The one nearest us to way too expensive for me.  Maybe it's worth it, I probably won't find out

Lazy Betty | Midtown Atlanta (https://www.lazybettyatl.com/)

We can easily get a very nice meal for $100 for dinner for two, if I don't order wine.  I don't need the ranking to enjoy it.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 23, 2025, 04:46:06 PM
Michelin just finally starting givng awards to Texas restaurants.  There are 7 1-stars in the Austin area and I've eaten at all of them.  They're all quite good but they gave a star to several deserving BBQ restaurants in the area, but NOT to Franklin which is definitely the best in Austin, the best in Texas, and considering Texas-style BBQ specifically, most likely the best in the world.

So, who knows what they're actually judging.  Seems like they tried to be a little edgy with their picks, which is fine, but it means they're not accurately reflecting the quality of food.  And, if they're not doing that, then I don't really see the point in what they're doing, at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 23, 2025, 04:58:56 PM
Their original "point" was to sell tires, and then they became somewhat famous in their ratings.  They also give out "keys" to motels, and one BnB near us (we've been given a tour, it is quite nice, a bit pricey).  The claim to rate restaurants purely on food, not service or anything else, which I tend to doubt, but whatever.

It's somebody's opinion, maybe several opinions, but think of how many places they can't possibly rate.  A city also has to pay them to come into town.

I'm not interested in paying nearly $400 per person for dinner, no matter how good.  Part of dining out for us is simply having interesting food, and not cooking and cleaning etc.  I've commented before about how I did not care at all for the 3 star place in Marseille to which I was basically forced to try.  Maybe I had a bad attitude.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 23, 2025, 07:43:51 PM
maybe?
did you get stuck with the bill???
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 23, 2025, 10:16:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/qSzJREG.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 24, 2025, 09:07:07 AM
don't think I've ever been to a place with a star

probably won't ever - not on my list
About - Topolobampo (https://topolochicago.com/about/)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 24, 2025, 09:10:30 AM
well, I don't visit the windy city much any longer
but, I do search out places that earn a James Beard Foundation recognition
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 24, 2025, 09:20:19 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/qSzJREG.jpeg)
I wonder if Jimbo Fisher is on that list?  I think he's under 9.9 Mil for at least 7 more years.  What a joke.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 24, 2025, 09:41:26 AM
Riley, Belichick, & Norvell obviously overpaid
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 24, 2025, 11:53:23 AM
15 Store-Bought Wing Sauces, Ranked

[img width=500 height=279.991]https://i.imgur.com/JyQbbst.png[/img]

https://www.tastingtable.com/1790321/store-bought-wing-sauces-avoid/ (https://www.tastingtable.com/1790321/store-bought-wing-sauces-avoid/)

3. Buffalo Wild Wings spicy garlic wing sauce

When I say that the garlic flavor in this sauce absolutely coats your palate and smacks you in the face, I'm not joking around. This stuff is garlicky, with just the right amount of spice to remind you that you are, indeed, enjoying a wing sauce and not just garlic. If you don't like garlic, you won't like this sauce, plain and simple. But for those of us who don't just like garlic but love garlic, this sauce is the perfect match. Spicy and garlicky, I appreciate that this BWW sauce delivered on exactly what the bottle promised, and tasted super delicious while doing so.

2. Sweet Baby Ray's Buffalo wing sauce

If you're a devout Buffalo lover and don't have any desire to veer from that flavor profile, this is the sauce for you. This tastes like classic Buffalo sauce through and through, with the perfect spice level and even better texture. If there's one brand on this list that gets closest to the texture and consistency of a homemade Buffalo sauce, it's Sweet Baby Ray's. I did ultimately like one sauce just a little bit more, but this is a sauce I would absolutely repurchase and enjoy again in the future.

1. Cholula caliente wing sauce
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 24, 2025, 11:55:56 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/jfLpIW9.png)

Legend Larry's Medium Wing Sauce, 12 fl oz (https://legendlarrys.com/products/med)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 24, 2025, 11:59:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bt74Yso.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 24, 2025, 01:21:24 PM
I've had the Frank's traditional and have also had the Nashville Hot. The Nashville Hot is delicious. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 25, 2025, 08:53:16 AM
don't think I've ever been to a place with a star

probably won't ever - not on my list
I've been to Lonestar 1 or 2 X, guess that makes me a foodie
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 25, 2025, 09:04:41 AM
I've had the Frank's traditional and have also had the Nashville Hot. The Nashville Hot is delicious.
Gotta try Marie Sharp's, The Original Melinda's until corporate stole her naming rights. But they grow their own peppers in Belize. I have the Habanero Pepper Sauce I go 4-5 shakes for a 7qt pot
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 25, 2025, 09:16:04 AM
she sold the rights
hopefully for a tidy sum
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 25, 2025, 09:34:03 AM
Riley, Belichick, & Norvell obviously overpaid
Noles got alot better until late in '23 when Jordan Travis went down they were 13-0.Overpaid perhaps but he's solid and many of his asst's have moved on and done well Lanning(ORE) and Kenny Dillingham(Sun Devils)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 25, 2025, 09:41:56 AM
I think Lanning was at UGA as DC, at least most recently.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 25, 2025, 09:52:33 AM
15 Store-Bought Wing Sauces, Ranked
Many of those are sponsered or full of shyt.I've seen quite a few rankings that had Cholula well down on the list. After much mixing/matching settled on
(https://i.imgur.com/8CGXSRc.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on February 25, 2025, 09:56:32 AM
I think Lanning was at UGA as DC, at least most recently.
Ya after being in Memphis with Norvell,but he had a lot to work with in Dawgdom
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 25, 2025, 12:24:46 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/7ZBtsH2.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 25, 2025, 01:25:18 PM
Aside from computers, what are the most impactful inventions since the 1950s?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 25, 2025, 01:30:36 PM
Some of the biggest inventions since 1950 include: the transistor, the birth control pill, the personal computer, the internet, the mobile phone, GPS, MRI scans, the barcode, the World Wide Web, and the smartphone, all of which significantly impacted daily life and various industries across the globe. 

15 Influential Innovations of the Past 50 Years (https://www.cnbc.com/2011/09/19/15-Influential-Innovations-of-the-Past-50-Years.html)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 25, 2025, 05:24:15 PM
So computer related inventions. Every other major invention was around by the 50s: cars, televisions, phones, microwaves, air conditioning, etc. We could already do most things that computers do, it just took longer. Catalogs instead of Amazon, for example.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 25, 2025, 05:37:29 PM
So computer related inventions. Every other major invention was around by the 50s: cars, televisions, phones, microwaves, air conditioning, etc. We could already do most things that computers do, it just took longer. Catalogs instead of Amazon, for example.
Not just computer related... I'd say the birth control pill was a massive invention that dramatically transformed society. Space flight was also a big one--and underpinned the GPS. And of course much of what you call "computer related" wouldn't have been possible without the transistor, which as an electrical engineer... Is HUGE. And the cellular phone might also be considered "computer related", but the cellular phone and then the smartphone transformed society in a major way.

The internet/WWW was obviously "computer related", but I'd argue that the impact they've had on society far outweighs the mere invention of the PC...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 25, 2025, 06:44:27 PM
don't forget the little blue pill
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 26, 2025, 08:33:22 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7EJMkhT.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 26, 2025, 08:43:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/dP5gV14.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 26, 2025, 11:41:23 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/OCzag2k.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 26, 2025, 05:30:56 PM
Not just computer related... I'd say the birth control pill was a massive invention that dramatically transformed society. Space flight was also a big one--and underpinned the GPS. And of course much of what you call "computer related" wouldn't have been possible without the transistor, which as an electrical engineer... Is HUGE. And the cellular phone might also be considered "computer related", but the cellular phone and then the smartphone transformed society in a major way.

The internet/WWW was obviously "computer related", but I'd argue that the impact they've had on society far outweighs the mere invention of the PC...
Now compare that to what got invented over the same timespan (65 years) prior to the 50s. 

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 26, 2025, 05:57:21 PM
I feel like the measles vaccine was a pretty good invention. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 26, 2025, 05:58:27 PM
Now compare that to what got invented over the same timespan (65 years) prior to the 50s.


I'm not denigrating ANY of the inventions you brought up from the prior era. They're all massive. 

You were the one who seemed to be minimized the stuff post-1950 as just "computer stuff" like it's all trivial in comparison. I was just defending them. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 26, 2025, 06:51:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/OCzag2k.png)
This is the map they should have on election nights, just so people have some kind of forced context.  It will open a lot of ignorant eyes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 26, 2025, 07:39:22 PM
I'm not denigrating ANY of the inventions you brought up from the prior era. They're all massive.

You were the one who seemed to be minimized the stuff post-1950 as just "computer stuff" like it's all trivial in comparison. I was just defending them.
I mean you said cell phones were the biggest thing, but that's just an upgrade of the telephone, which was already invented. 

You could drop just about anyone into the 50s, and they'd get by okay. Anything before that, they'd be pretty screwed.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 26, 2025, 08:03:52 PM
I mean you said cell phones were the biggest thing, but that's just an upgrade of the telephone, which was already invented.

You could drop just about anyone into the 50s, and they'd get by okay. Anything before that, they'd be pretty screwed.
I didn't say cell phones were the "biggest" thing. IMHO possibly the biggest of that entire list was the transistor. But I'd also argue cell phones are a little bit more than just an upgrade of the telephone. 

But I disagree with the second point. I think to a large extent, you could take anyone between 1950 and 1995 and *mostly* they'd be able to slot in to each other's world. But I think the difference between 1995 and 2025 is an absolutely insane gap compared to the difference between 1950 and 1995. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 26, 2025, 08:08:51 PM
Mandatory seat belts.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 26, 2025, 11:44:52 PM
helmet laws
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 07:51:04 AM
I was interested in seeing MRI on the list.  I'm not disputing it, I just would not have thought of it.  It's a much older technique used in chemistry since the 60s pretty widely, but only for samples in small tubes, not whole body parts.  That technique was called "NMR", for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, they changed the name to get rid of the nuclear term, so folks wouldn't confuse it with Xrays I guess or get upset that it was nuclear radiation.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 27, 2025, 09:47:03 AM
get upset that it was nuclear radiation.

people don't know what an Xray is
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 09:50:32 AM
The word "nuclear" just sounds bad, to folks, for whatever reason, like "nuclear family" must be one that is radioactive I guess.

We're all exposed to electromagnetic radiation daily .... sometimes at dangerous levels.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 27, 2025, 10:03:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/VntVsVA.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 27, 2025, 10:35:08 AM
Probably 2004 USC or 2001 Miami.

No OSU in the list? 2002, 2014 and 2024 not good enough?

Seems like an oversight to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 11:18:19 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/SMRGu6G.png)

I bet few would guess accurately who is Number Two.

I have been through the top nine interestingly, or not.  And 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20.

I thought Haneda was quite nice but there was a lot of walking after a long flight.  CDG is my least favorite.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 27, 2025, 11:24:22 AM
I've been through all of the American ones plus Heathrow, CDG, and Amsterdam.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 27, 2025, 11:30:22 AM
I've been through all of the American ones plus Heathrow, CDG, and Amsterdam.
Sub Frankfort for CDG and this is me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 27, 2025, 11:47:57 AM

I bet few would guess accurately who is Number Two.
I wouldn't have guessed, but it's not surprising. If you look at a map, it's basically right in the middle of a lot of routes between Europe, Africa, China, India, and Southeast Asia. Dubai is a major financial center of the ME. And Dubai has got so much $%&#!@ money that they can build the biggest, ritziest airport they want to in order to attract flyers/airlines to come through. 

So it makes sense, even if I might not have guessed. 

I've been through all of the American ones plus Heathrow, CDG, and Amsterdam.

Same, minus Amsterdam. 

The other question I'd ask everyone here... What is the most notable OMISSION to you on this list... The airport that you'd think would be there, but isn't. 

For me, it's probably Hong Kong... I've flown through there several times and it's always seemed like a major hub, as well as being a big financial center for Asia and just over the [former?] border with Shenzhen, a major industrial city. I wonder if maybe it used to be on this list, but flyers have been routing around it after some of the things China has done to HK over the last few years? 

Runner up for me might be Shanghai... Also a major city (both industrial and financial), probably very much a gateway for westerners to the rest of China and a gateway for Chinese out of China... Looking at pictures of Shanghai from say the 1990s to today I thought it might be on this list. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 27, 2025, 11:49:05 AM
I've been through very few, and cornsider myself blessed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 11:50:26 AM
I might have had Laguardia top 20.  Mexico City?  Toronto?  Moscow?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 11:52:28 AM
Did you know ATL’s journey began as Candler Field, a former auto racetrack leased by Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler? In 1926, the first flight took off, marking the start of aviation history in Atlanta.

(https://i.imgur.com/jMOLuH1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 27, 2025, 11:59:15 AM


I might have had Laguardia top 20.  Mexico City?  Toronto?  Moscow? 
Something in Italy. Rome, Milan.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on February 27, 2025, 12:00:45 PM
I think we have the least busy commercial airport. There's like four gates. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 27, 2025, 12:01:19 PM
The other question I'd ask everyone here... What is the most notable OMISSION to you on this list... The airport that you'd think would be there, but isn't.

I guess I'm a little surprised Brussels isn't on the list.  I've flown into Belgium several times, but I've also connected through Brussels multiple times.  But then with high-traffic Heathrow, CDG, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt all relatively close, it seems my experience might be unique.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 27, 2025, 12:05:46 PM
We've been through Brussels too. Pretty large airport.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 27, 2025, 12:18:26 PM
I think we have the least busy commercial airport. There's like four gates.
I much prefer smaller less busy airports
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 27, 2025, 02:04:00 PM
I've been through very few, and cornsider myself blessed
Zero for me as well.  Maybe Harry Reid in LV, but it seems like that's not the name of the airport there I use?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 27, 2025, 02:05:41 PM
Zero for me as well.  Maybe Harry Reid in LV, but it seems like that's not the name of the airport there I use? 
Check that, after looking again I've been thru Denver.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 02:07:10 PM
I much prefer smaller less busy airports
Savannah is nice,  you walk out and there is the rental car place, right outside the door.  Yay.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on February 27, 2025, 02:10:58 PM
I guess I've bene through Harry Reid Airport as well, used to be called McCarran.  Apparently he was anti-Semite and racist, you know back when we were a proper country.  ;) 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 27, 2025, 06:08:19 PM
1. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
2. 1984 – George Orwell
3. Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
4. The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
5. Where the Crawdads Sing – Delia Owens
6. The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien
7. A Song of Ice and Fire – George R.R. Martin
8. Dune – Frank Herbert
9. The Left Hand of Darkness – Ursula K. Le Guin
10. Sapiens – Yuval Noah Harari
11. Educated – Tara Westover
12. All the Light We Cannot See – Anthony Doerr
13. The Nightingale – Kristin Hannah
14. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Stieg Larsson
15. Gone Girl – Gillian Flynn
16. Meditations – Marcus Aurelius
17. Atomic Habits – James Clear
18. The Fault in Our Stars – John Green
19. The Hunger Games – Suzanne Collins

Must reads apparently.  I've read the bolded ones, they are good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 27, 2025, 06:11:26 PM
1. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
2. 1984 – George Orwell
3. Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
4. The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
5. Where the Crawdads Sing – Delia Owens
6. The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien
7. A Song of Ice and Fire – George R.R. Martin
8. Dune – Frank Herbert
9. The Left Hand of Darkness – Ursula K. Le Guin
10. Sapiens – Yuval Noah Harari
11. Educated – Tara Westover
12. All the Light We Cannot See – Anthony Doerr
13. The Nightingale – Kristin Hannah
14. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Stieg Larsson
15. Gone Girl – Gillian Flynn
16. Meditations – Marcus Aurelius
17. Atomic Habits – James Clear
18. The Fault in Our Stars – John Green
19. The Hunger Games – Suzanne Collins

Must reads apparently.  I've read the bolded ones, they are good.

I've read most of the same ones as you, a few different, I highlighted mine in red.  I liked them all, so I should probably check out the others that I haven't read.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 27, 2025, 07:08:14 PM
1. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
2. 1984 – George Orwell
3. Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
4. The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
5. Where the Crawdads Sing – Delia Owens
6. The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien
7. A Song of Ice and Fire – George R.R. Martin
8. Dune – Frank Herbert
9. The Left Hand of Darkness – Ursula K. Le Guin
10. Sapiens – Yuval Noah Harari
11. Educated – Tara Westover
12. All the Light We Cannot See – Anthony Doerr
13. The Nightingale – Kristin Hannah
14. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Stieg Larsson
15. Gone Girl – Gillian Flynn
16. Meditations – Marcus Aurelius
17. Atomic Habits – James Clear
18. The Fault in Our Stars – John Green
19. The Hunger Games – Suzanne Collins

Must reads apparently.  I've read the bolded ones, they are good.

I've read six of the top 10. The ones I've missed are 3/4/5 and #9. I have read another of Le Guin's books, The Dispossessed

From 11-19, the only one I've read is The Hunger Games

For those who have not read Sapiens, I highly recommend it. Back when I still talked about politics online, I often highlighted the power of myths... Which rankled people because I'd talk about things they hold dear and refer to them as myths--even things that objectively exist such as money/currency. Money/currency exists, but the only reason that anyone will accept it for goods or services is the myth that society all agrees that it's got value and OTHER people will accept it for goods or services. The first half of the book is about sort of the history of homo sapiens outcompeting neanderthals largely due to things like cooking food, which made food easier to digest, which means we had more energy to go into our brains. But the second half talks more about modern society and how our ability as a species to embrace myths is a tremendous underpinning of being able to have a society at all.

I've heard good things about Atomic Habits, but haven't read it myself. One of the key tenets as described by someone who HAS read it is the idea that “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems." It's one of the reasons that when it comes to my fitness journey over the last few years, I haven't really set "goals" for specific results. Not a number on a scale, or a waist measurement, or a specific amount of weight lifted or an output achieved on the Peloton. What I've done is committed to what inputs I'm going to put in, and the results will be what they'll be. Setting "goals" can be demoralizing if you don't achieve them. Creating a system of what you're going to do, on the other hand, is within your control to fulfill. If you are fulfilling that and the results aren't satisfying, you need to change your system, not beat yourself up for failing to hit some metric. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 27, 2025, 11:54:48 PM
Based on the movies, Dune has to be one of the only books that transpire quicker than the movie, in real time :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 28, 2025, 08:27:11 AM
Seems like a pretty neat list, the ones "we" have read "we" like a lot.  I use Libby (App) to get books from the library, I'm going to track some down as we have a looonnnnggg plane flight midMarch.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 28, 2025, 10:03:32 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/F36EWBI.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Riffraft on February 28, 2025, 11:06:47 AM
1. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
2. 1984 – George Orwell
3. Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
4. The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
5. Where the Crawdads Sing – Delia Owens
6. The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien
7. A Song of Ice and Fire – George R.R. Martin
8. Dune – Frank Herbert
9. The Left Hand of Darkness – Ursula K. Le Guin
10. Sapiens – Yuval Noah Harari
11. Educated – Tara Westover
12. All the Light We Cannot See – Anthony Doerr
13. The Nightingale – Kristin Hannah
14. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Stieg Larsson
15. Gone Girl – Gillian Flynn
16. Meditations – Marcus Aurelius
17. Atomic Habits – James Clear
18. The Fault in Our Stars – John Green
19. The Hunger Games – Suzanne Collins

Must reads apparently.  I've read the bolded ones, they are good.

Read 7 of the top 10, but only 1 in the second 10
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 28, 2025, 11:25:18 AM
I didn't read that one, or that one, or that one...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 28, 2025, 11:55:35 AM
I somehow missed them all
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 28, 2025, 12:29:33 PM
TKAM, 1984, and P&P were all on my required reading lists in high school. And although I like the Jane Austen novels, I'm actually more of a Bronte sisters kind of guy.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 28, 2025, 12:37:43 PM
Oddly enough, not one of the three was on my required list for HS English... 

Around 2004 or so I went through a stretch of reading various "classics" that I'd never been forced to read. TKAM and 1984 were part of that for me. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on February 28, 2025, 12:44:15 PM
Oddly enough, not one of the three was on my required list for HS English...

Around 2004 or so I went through a stretch of reading various "classics" that I'd never been forced to read. TKAM and 1984 were part of that for me.
Well I was in the most advanced AP English Lit classes, so I could understand why you wouldn't have had the same reading lists I did...

;)

Great Gatsby was on those lists as well and reading it was such a pleasure, I immediately went and bought everything F Scott Fitzgerald wrote and read it all within a week or two.  His first book, This Side of Paradise, is actually my favorite, though it's quite clearly the most raw and least refined of all of his works.  To this day he remains my favorite author when I'm forced to name one.

My least favorite book on all of my required reading lists, was The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck.  I hated that book which is pretty rare for me, especially for literature that's considered classic.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 28, 2025, 12:57:57 PM
I have no memory of any mandatory reading lists in HS.  That of course was prior to the invention of paper.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on February 28, 2025, 01:12:05 PM
Well I was in the most advanced AP English Lit classes, so I could understand why you wouldn't have had the same reading lists I did...

;)

Lol. I did take honors English, but I decided not to go the AP route senior year. Figured it wasn't worth it 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 28, 2025, 01:12:59 PM
What's a senior year?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on February 28, 2025, 01:13:23 PM
we didn't read books in HS English class
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on February 28, 2025, 01:16:15 PM
I never read a book that I wasn't forced to read.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on February 28, 2025, 01:20:53 PM
Reading for me is a pleasure, though I find I start a lot of books and send them back after 70 pages or so.

I'm rereading Unbounded Courage at the moment.  I often find the second time through I pick up on some stuff of note.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on February 28, 2025, 11:00:53 PM
I never read a book that I wasn't forced to read.
Run for president.

This is a very sad sentence.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on March 01, 2025, 07:24:53 AM
I used to read quite a lot of books, especially sci-fi.  My problem is that I’m a pretty fast reader, and I tend to binge read.  So once I pick a book up I tend to read it cover to cover in just a few days versus a few hours here and there. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 01, 2025, 07:55:16 AM
I'm loading up my iPad for a long flight, maybe I should get some boring books.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 08:32:53 AM
helps you sleep
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 01, 2025, 08:55:33 AM
I tried to get some of the books on that list on my iPad, all of them I have not read are on 'back order'.  This is via the Libby app which downloads library books.

It's very useful, to me, I used to troop up to the library once a week or so for real books.  It's a nice walk.

Often I put a hold on 3-4 books I want to read and suddenly 3 of them appear at the same time, and I have to release 1-2 of them back.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 01, 2025, 10:24:15 AM
Run for president.

This is a very sad sentence.
I've been president of two companies, board president for a chamber, and board president for a college foundation.

You?

No need to answer. We know.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 01, 2025, 10:43:01 AM
I was Treasurer of a flying club once.  I tried to get my wife to run for the HOA here, but no dice.

I prefer being a nobody.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 01, 2025, 10:48:14 AM
I was Treasurer of a flying club once.  I tried to get my wife to run for the HOA here, but no dice.

I prefer being a nobody.
I'm there now.

My wife is on our HOA.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 01, 2025, 10:52:38 AM
I'm an officer in our 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit that ran the tailgate.
I'm the Committee Chair for my son's boy scout troop.

I guess that's about it.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 11:31:41 AM
I was 4th grade class president
President of the regional AutoCad user's group

and famously, Fearless Leader of the Annual Sharkwater tailgate party
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 01, 2025, 11:34:05 AM
I've never been president of a book club.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 11:49:22 AM
I've never been a member of a book club
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 01, 2025, 11:50:33 AM
I am a book club.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 11:53:01 AM
I don't feel tardy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 01, 2025, 12:04:03 PM
I've never been a member of a book club
My wife is, but I think it's more of an excuse to go out to lunch and do some day drinking.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 12:21:09 PM
why didn't they tell me.?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on March 01, 2025, 01:47:13 PM
Who was the Georgia WR that joined a book club with a bunch of middle aged women? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 01, 2025, 02:58:24 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/football-star-shows-you-cant-judge-a-book-by-its-cover/
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 10:23:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/yDVRfYt.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/g6a7RsO.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 02, 2025, 11:21:51 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/dz8EsD1.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 02, 2025, 03:34:13 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/IGquds4.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 05, 2025, 04:31:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/4XBx5Lu.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 05, 2025, 04:34:03 PM
Texas would be tops if the ags hadn't stolen 1/3 of our oil money!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 05, 2025, 04:35:53 PM
so, that's where the Aggies got the money for coaches

tax all those billionaires!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 05, 2025, 04:40:55 PM
Oh geez not that again!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 05, 2025, 09:03:15 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/kBSZ8Hz.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 06, 2025, 07:11:35 PM
Spring practice is already underway or will soon start for all 18 teams in the Big Ten for the 2025 college football season. Although it's tough to get an accurate read on teams from practices in the spring, this is the first set of official workouts and provides some insight into rosters, coaching outlooks, transfers or impact freshmen for the upcoming year.

Reigning national champion Ohio State leads the way in the pre-spring power rankings in the Big Ten for the 2025 season, but Penn State and Oregon aren't too far behind. Additionally, the next tier of teams in the conference features playoff contenders in Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Nebraska, USC, and Washington are sleeper teams to watch this fall.

What are the early storylines to watch and how do the teams stack up in the Big Ten going into '25? Here are Athlon's top things to watch and the storylines in the conference going into spring practice:

Big Ten Football: Athlon Sports Spring 2025 Power Rankings


https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-spring-2025-power-rankings#gid=ci02f5a5ca6000275d&pid=big-ten-football-spring-2025-power-rankings (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-football-spring-2025-power-rankings#gid=ci02f5a5ca6000275d&pid=big-ten-football-spring-2025-power-rankings)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on March 07, 2025, 09:03:41 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bf/01/d1/bf01d192d9d144af5a5cf7deffa9fd3b.jpg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2025, 09:08:22 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/gSE5IkA.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 07, 2025, 09:24:50 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bf/01/d1/bf01d192d9d144af5a5cf7deffa9fd3b.jpg)
Nothing East of the Mississippi.

Map drawing people got lazy.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: bayareabadger on March 07, 2025, 09:32:46 AM
Nothing East of the Mississippi.

Map drawing people got lazy.
Figured out they needed fewer state legislatures 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 07, 2025, 09:34:29 AM
Florida at #11?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 07, 2025, 09:45:52 AM
Florida at #11?
Florida drew itself. Georgia and Alabama were already there.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 07, 2025, 09:46:29 AM
Florida is #22 in size from what I gather.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2025, 10:00:38 AM
The western states obviously are much larger because territories wanted to be states and needed a certain population, give or take.  I guess Iowa is the smallest state W of the Miss.  Other than Hawaii.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2025, 12:16:05 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/qM05EX7.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2025, 12:59:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/kBSZ8Hz.jpeg)
I have no clue how this is calculated, I'd probably have Ohio State at #1.  I dimly recall they don't report some figures.  I'm surprised that OU would that high, I'd have Texas and Michigan and Alabama and probably A&M aheead of UGA.  Clemson seems low, to me.  Is that Utah at 9?  Huh.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 07, 2025, 01:05:41 PM
annual value???

plucked from Facebook
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 07, 2025, 01:29:33 PM
Well if Facebook is wrong, I don't want to be right!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on March 07, 2025, 01:40:11 PM
I'm sure we all have a decent notion as to which programs are "most valuable", using some criteria or other.  One could start with stadium size as one raw metric that works OK to start.  Apparel numbers are mostly known (OSU aside).  Size of fan base.  Enthusiasm of fans.  Recen on field.

I think in Tier One I'd group OSU for sure, ND, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, kind of abbreviated BBs in fact.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 09, 2025, 09:50:31 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/XV3bSA3.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on March 09, 2025, 10:46:10 AM
The western states obviously are much larger because territories wanted to be states and needed a certain population, give or take.  I guess Iowa is the smallest state W of the Miss.  Other than Hawaii.
'How the States Got Their Shapes'  is a fun book/read.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 10, 2025, 05:41:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QvXNirB.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on March 12, 2025, 08:43:27 AM
Texas would be tops if the ags hadn't stolen 1/3 of our oil money!
As the old joke goes, we picked first.  Lots of chatter that A&M should be allotted more due to the fact that there is no longer a size disparity, and if anything A&M is much bigger studentwise now than UT.  I have no idea about the size of the add-on universities or how much funding they receive from the PUF.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 15, 2025, 04:59:56 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/EmffTkz.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on March 16, 2025, 05:15:32 AM
Oof.  There are some... problems... with that list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on March 16, 2025, 05:37:10 AM
Uh,ya Santana/SRV/Duane Allman top 5-10-15 you can mix/match this mess depends on what you feel like listening to. I'd have Roy Buchannon,BB and Albert king and throw in Gary Moore if we're talking just blues.Sure Hendrix was good but a lot of sunshine pumpers slobbering because he died young and lit his guitar on fire " Down in Monterey" great tune by Eric Burden

Oops left out Chalie Daniels a great picker in his own right. Bob Dylan requested him before he was Charlie in '69 so that's him on Nashville Skyline playing guitar and bass. Johnny Cash also played on that album
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on March 16, 2025, 05:55:15 AM
Well if Facebook is wrong, I don't want to be right!
:043: Strange days indeed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on March 16, 2025, 06:00:38 AM
Reading for me is a pleasure
helps you sleep
Truth when I start reading watching WWII history online,I'm facking up half the night. Get the book though and sknx-z-z-z-z it is
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on March 16, 2025, 10:32:40 AM
https://youtu.be/3NFywQdeKSo
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on March 17, 2025, 10:48:37 PM
This isn't a ranking, but an ask for help.  I haven't been able to research it any, so if someone pops up off the top of your head, let me know:

For Whoa Nellie, I'm filling an all-time teams order.  Are there any players who earned their way onto an all-time team (of the top 40 programs, historically)?

Like 2 years ago a ND DE became their all-time leader in sacks, so I added him in.  Think:  big career stats (passing, rushing, receiving, sacks, INTs) at one school.

One thing I hadn't thought of is with all this movement from school to school under the portal era, there are A LOT of guys having a big year at their 3rd school, which is going to leave them off my WN all-time teams.

Anyways, thanks for the help.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MarqHusker on March 17, 2025, 11:49:59 PM
hard to exclude Larry Carlton on that list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 03, 2025, 12:18:41 PM
Big Ten Strength of Schedule Rankings: Spring

https://collegefootballnews.com/college-football/big-ten-football-2025-strength-of-schedule-rankings (https://collegefootballnews.com/college-football/big-ten-football-2025-strength-of-schedule-rankings)

Again, the lower the score, the tougher the schedule and ranking.

The No. 1 team has the hardest schedule, 18 has the easiest, and next to each team is the toughest game to easiest.


1 UCLA Bruins
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 376.5


2 Wisconsin Badgers
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 368.5


3 Purdue Boilermakers

4 Iowa Hawkeyes
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 452.5

5 Ohio State Buckeyes
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 455.5

6 USC Trojans
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 458.5

7 Washington Huskies
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 471.5

8 Oregon Ducks
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 473.5

9 Michigan Wolverines
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 478.5

10 Michigan State Spartans
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 484.5

11 Northwestern Wildcats
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 498.5

12 Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 501.5

13 Minnesota Golden Gophers
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 518

14 Nebraska Cornhuskers
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 526.5
- 2025 Nebraska Schedule Analysis

1 Nov 22 at Penn State
2 Sept 20 Michigan
3 Oct 18 at Minnesota
4 Oct 11 at Maryland
5 Nov 1 USC
6 Oct 4 Michigan State
7 Nov 29 Iowa
8 Nov 8 at UCLA
9 Aug 30 vs Cincinnati (in Kansas City)
10 Oct 25 Northwestern
11 Sept 6 Akron
12 Sept 13 Houston Christian

Missing: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon, Purdue, Rutgers, Washington, Wisconsin


15 Illinois Fighting Illini
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 539

16 Indiana Hoosiers
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 566

17 Maryland Terrapins
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 563

18 Penn State Nittany Lions
Spring Strength of Schedule Score: 601
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 03, 2025, 02:16:01 PM
hard to exclude Larry Carlton on that list.

Just looking at that list and realizing that they mean "Most popular/iconic guitarists of all time" and not "Most skilled guitarists of all time".....yeah, Larry Carlton doesn't belong on it.  He belongs on the one with guys who are serious players.  A few of the ones listed on that graphic belong on both.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 08, 2025, 10:22:44 AM
College Football Blue Blood Schools
Here's how we're defining the blue blood college football schools - it's about regular season consistency for a long, LONG time.

How many times did you come up with ten wins or more? It's an easy round number to use as a measuring stick, and it's really, really hard to do.

For another round number, 20 - that's how many 10-win seasons are needed to get into our "blue blood" club.


https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-blue-bloods-best-football-schools-2025 (https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-blue-bloods-best-football-schools-2025)


T6 Nebraska
10-Win Football Seasons: 28
Big Ten, 5 National Titles

T6 USC
10-Win Football Seasons: 28
Big Ten, 9 National Titles

5 Georgia
10-Win Football Seasons: 29
SEC, 3 National Titles


T3 Ohio State
10-Win Football Seasons: 32
Big Ten, 7 National Titles

T3 Michigan
10-Win Football Seasons: 32
Big Ten, 10 National Titles

2 Oklahoma
10-Win Football Seasons: 42
SEC, 7 National Titles


1 Alabama
10-Win Football Seasons: 44
SEC, 15 National Titles

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 08, 2025, 09:51:35 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/hufJjdI.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 08, 2025, 10:07:11 PM
College Football Blue Blood Schools
Here's how we're defining the blue blood college football schools - it's about regular season consistency for a long, LONG time.


T6 USC
10-Win Football Seasons: 28
Big Ten, 9 National Titles

5 Georgia
10-Win Football Seasons: 29
SEC, 3 National Titles
Oh, those silly Dawgs.  Only Georgia math can get you one extra ten-win season > 6 NCs
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2025, 06:21:44 AM
World’s top 10 busiest airports for passenger traffic in 2024

1. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta (ATL): 108.1 million passengers; up 3.3% from 2023
2. Dubai (DBX): 92.3 million passengers; up 6.1% from 2023
3. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW): 87.8 million passengers; up 7.4% from 2023
4. Tokyo Haneda (HND): 85.9 million passengers; up 9.1% from 2023
5. London Heathrow (LHR): 83.9 million passengers; up 5.9% from 2023
6. Denver (DEN): 82.4 million passengers; up 5.8% from 2023
7. Istanbul (IST): 80.1 million passengers; up 5.3% from 2023
8. Chicago O’Hare (ORD): 80 million passengers; up 8.3% from 2023
9. New Delhi (DEL): 77.8 million passengers; up 7.8% from 2023
10. Shanghai Pudong (PVG): 76.8 million passengers; up 41% from 2023


I've been in 1-8.  When we landed at Dubai from Doha, we were put on a bus that rode so long people on board started laughing that they were bussing us to Amsterdam.  It was very inefficient.

ATL was laid out for folks to change planes, and it works pretty well, usually.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 14, 2025, 07:43:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/T6zfNtN.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2025, 08:38:56 AM
Atlanta scores spot on shortlist of ‘most visited cities’ | Urbanize Atlanta (https://atlanta.urbanize.city/post/atl-conde-nast-shortlist-most-visited-cities?fbclid=IwY2xjawJsg4hleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnMKqf0p9j3LrK2kxC0KxREFfX15ssT02jhduGAJR6rsnMMR06IV2FnE3ua_aem_c2vli2bNHs9TzjSF9ROsFw)

12th isn't exactly a short list, but whatever.  NYC was 1 by a long margin, followed by cities one might guess.

Rounding out the top five cities for international visitors were Miami, Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Francisco, respectively, with Las Vegas at sixth, according to ITA’s tabulations.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 16, 2025, 08:52:15 AM
Lots of Florida on that list.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 16, 2025, 08:53:54 AM
apparently, Canucks count

and Cubans
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2025, 08:54:36 AM
Expectedly so I think.  I would have guessed DC in the top five.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 16, 2025, 08:55:12 AM
Miami and Fort Lauderdale are MAJOR cruise ports. That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 16, 2025, 09:02:52 AM
6. Vegas
7. DC
8. Chicago
9. Honolulu
10. Boston
11.  Houston
12.  Atlanta

I idly wonder if they count folks who come through ATL airport en route to somewhere else.

13. Ft. L
14. Dallas
15.  San Diego

Seems about right.  Philadelphia might be top 20.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 16, 2025, 10:01:06 AM
1. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta (ATL): 108.1 million passengers; up 3.3% from 2023

When I lived in Macon in the early 90's we learned that ATL was the busiest airport, with a plane taking off or landing an average of every 7 seconds.  I guess it's remained the busiest.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 17, 2025, 09:12:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/LGclxgd.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 17, 2025, 09:24:24 AM
I don't want to retire in Alaska!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 17, 2025, 09:32:01 AM
another reason ol' Burney moved to Tennessee
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 17, 2025, 09:50:34 AM
another reason ol' Burney moved to Tennessee
Yup.  And since there's no state income tax, all of the taxes are basically consumption or luxury taxes.  His plan was to severely limit consumption, which I believe he really has done effectively, and since his land is out in the middle of nowhere, it's probably not highly taxed, either.  Not like if he were near an urban core.

He's probably paying well below that rate.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 17, 2025, 09:58:13 AM
The percentage, to me, is a bit odd.  Let's imagine I'm paying say $100,000 a year in all tax in a state, but my income is $2 million.  Not a very high percentage.

Or I'm only earning $75,000 but live in a high tax part of a state and am paying $25,000 overall in property tax etc.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 17, 2025, 09:59:34 AM
The percentage, to me, is a bit odd.  Let's imagine I'm paying say $100,000 a year in all tax in a state, but my income is $2 million.  Not a very high percentage.

Or I'm only earning $75,000 but live in a high tax part of a state and am paying $25,000 overall in property tax etc. 
Well yes, by necessity it would have to be averaged.  They have to come up with a single number somehow.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 17, 2025, 10:06:49 AM
I don't want to retire in Alaska!
Or Hawaii.

Florida is good.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 17, 2025, 10:07:36 AM
since we have no idear how they came up with the number, said number maybe worthless

move to Texas!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 17, 2025, 10:08:40 AM
Taxes too high here, Florida is the place to be!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 17, 2025, 10:11:03 AM
It's total tax burden. I'd say I'm less than 6.5% overall, because I still have a high income.

Property taxes here are 1/4 of what I paid in Illinois, and my house is worth more.

Sales tax is 7% here. 11.5% in Illinois (Crook County).
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 17, 2025, 10:15:30 AM
Sales tax here is 8.9% (lower in the 'burbs).  My property tax is the same rate as it was in Cincy, but the valuation is double.  State tax here is midrange, about a flat 5% (but zero on part of retirement earnings).  My income is obviously highly variable (dependent on book sales and what not).  Mostly not.

I really have no idea what the right figure would be, maybe 12%?  I guess that's an "idea".
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 17, 2025, 10:33:28 AM
I don't want to retire in Louisiana, but I feel like I should, or somewhere like it.  State income tax won't affect me, and the property taxes are virtually nothing.  Property taxes in Texas are a thing I wonder how a lot of people deal with in retirement.

Don't move here.  Property taxes are way too high.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 17, 2025, 12:30:20 PM
101 fun facts that will blow your mind | BBC Science Focus (https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/fun-facts)



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 18, 2025, 10:50:11 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/tvR6uVz.png)

UGA has a crap OOC slate because Texas ran away from them.  I think it was Texas.   Maybe it was UCLA.  Somebody.  OK, I checked, it was UCLA, the cowards.



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 18, 2025, 11:02:55 AM
LSU @ Clemson over Texas @ Ohio State?

Yeah... no.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 18, 2025, 11:09:51 AM
Yeah, not even close really, IMHO.  I had failed to notice that.  ND at Miami should be higher as well.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 18, 2025, 11:10:23 AM
For OOC?

Gimme Wisconsin at Bama, Wisconsin at Oregon, Washington at Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 18, 2025, 11:13:33 AM
For OOC?

Gimme Wisconsin at Bama, Wisconsin at Oregon, Washington at Wisconsin.
Who's gonna tell him...?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Honestbuckeye on April 18, 2025, 11:31:29 AM
Who's gonna tell him...?
😂😂
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 18, 2025, 11:31:49 AM
Texas at Florida and Texas at Georgia look good. I might have to venture to Gainesburg this season.

The damn 'Dores visit Austin.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 18, 2025, 12:27:28 PM
Texas at Florida and Texas at Georgia look good. I might have to venture to Gainesburg this season.

The damn 'Dores visit Austin.
Board meeting in Austin on 11/1/2025!!!

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 20, 2025, 10:50:19 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/hS6qSQo.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 20, 2025, 03:08:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VCTNgWc.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 20, 2025, 06:01:47 PM
Arizona State has as many as Bama? 

The Wolverines have a lot, considering most of their top performers played long before the NFL was a thing. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 21, 2025, 08:54:56 AM
UGA gets a lot of folks drafted now of course, but that was not the case before ca. 1980 or so.  Of course there were fewer NFL teams way back but more rounds.

More that I thought, in part because they had so many more rounds.

List of Georgia Bulldogs in the NFL draft - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Georgia_Bulldogs_in_the_NFL_draft)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 21, 2025, 09:58:40 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0Wbgzvp.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 21, 2025, 10:15:57 AM
LSU @ Clemson over Texas @ Ohio State?

Yeah... no.

Speak for yourself.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 21, 2025, 11:56:00 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/0Wbgzvp.png)
move to Texas
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 21, 2025, 12:04:07 PM
That's a fantasy map concocted by a ring of kidney-stealers trying to lure in unsuspecting victims.  It's a known problem here.

Nobody wants to deal with that.  I hear Florida is nice.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 21, 2025, 12:17:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9wiSnp0.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 21, 2025, 12:24:13 PM
golderned vandy
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 21, 2025, 01:20:32 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8wAr4AD.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2025, 10:14:12 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/O4cJqcj.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 22, 2025, 11:52:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/O4cJqcj.png)

West Virginia is so obese they don't even get a number.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 22, 2025, 11:53:14 AM
West Virginia is so obese they don't even get a number. 
Those mountain mamas birth 'em BIG.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 22, 2025, 11:55:18 AM
Those mountain mamas birth 'em BIG.

And here I thought everything was bigger in TEXAS.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2025, 12:03:24 PM
West Virginia is so obese they don't even get a number. 
40.6%
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 22, 2025, 12:06:40 PM
And unsurprisingly, the map for the popularity of diabetes juice aka sweet tea has a strong correlation to the map for obesity...

But man, good for California and Florida.  Everyone should move there!
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2025, 12:09:56 PM
And unsurprisingly, the map for the popularity of diabetes juice aka sweet tea has a strong correlation to the map for obesity...

But man, good for California and Florida.  Everyone should move there!
California ranks higher in taxes than we do.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 22, 2025, 12:16:02 PM
I still don't understand how Colorado is such an outlier. 

I mean, everyone in Colorado seems to love the mountains and outdoors... But why would that be different than Utah, or Wyoming, or Idaho?

Doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I'm sure there's a good explanation; I just don't know what it is.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 22, 2025, 12:17:59 PM
I still don't understand how Colorado is such an outlier.

I mean, everyone in Colorado seems to love the mountains and outdoors... But why would that be different than Utah, or Wyoming, or Idaho?

Doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I'm sure there's a good explanation; I just don't know what it is.
Plus they all smoke so much weed, you'd figure the munchies rate would be pretty high...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2025, 12:44:19 PM
States with large urban populations trend to being less obese.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 22, 2025, 12:47:21 PM
I still don't understand how Colorado is such an outlier.

I mean, everyone in Colorado seems to love the mountains and outdoors... But why would that be different than Utah, or Wyoming, or Idaho?

Doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I'm sure there's a good explanation; I just don't know what it is.

My best guess is some kind of correlation between left-leaners and better diets.  Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho have more right-leaning populations, and in my anecdotal experience, the hippie-libs tend to have more focus on diet and superior restraint in that department.  My father-in-law and his wife live in Colorado, and they definitely fit that bill. 

This is based on zero evidence or research whatsoever, and correlation is not necessarily causation.  As CD pointed out, there's the cities vs. rural thing, and that also corresponds to left and right-leaners.  Multi-collinearity, we call that in nerd stats.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2025, 12:58:00 PM
I'd note also that the difference between 35% and 40% could be withint the MoE.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2025, 03:38:19 PM
My best guess is some kind of correlation between left-leaners and better diets.  Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho have more right-leaning populations, and in my anecdotal experience, the hippie-libs tend to have more focus on diet and superior restraint in that department.  My father-in-law and his wife live in Colorado, and they definitely fit that bill. 

This is based on zero evidence or research whatsoever, and correlation is not necessarily causation.  As CD pointed out, there's the cities vs. rural thing, and that also corresponds to left and right-leaners.  Multi-collinearity, we call that in nerd stats. 
Doesn't help explain Florida.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 22, 2025, 03:46:50 PM
In my experience, there's just no explanation for Florida.



(https://media1.tenor.com/m/XZLJcpTRNtsAAAAd/florida-bugs-bunny.gif)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 22, 2025, 03:47:33 PM
Doesn't help explain Florida.

Florida is inherently superior, and everyone should move there.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2025, 04:00:38 PM
In my experience, there's just no explanation for Florida.



(https://media1.tenor.com/m/XZLJcpTRNtsAAAAd/florida-bugs-bunny.gif)
Sometimes I wish for that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 22, 2025, 04:01:24 PM
In my experience, there's just no explanation for Florida.
Meth heads are skinny. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 22, 2025, 04:02:06 PM
Meth heads are skinny.

But then, you look at Oklahoma over there...
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 22, 2025, 04:07:09 PM
Meth heads are skinny.
That's not a big problem here. Cops are allowed to do their jobs and have cleaned that up over the years.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 22, 2025, 04:10:52 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/8wAr4AD.png)
Not sure I believe that chart, even for median wealth.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 22, 2025, 07:36:54 PM
I looked askance at it too.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 09:58:13 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/SlpU07c.png)

Median home sizes.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 10:06:53 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/SlpU07c.png)

Median home sizes.

I'd be interested in a "median car cubic foot" map as well, especially comparing the US to Europe.

Back when I was working as a final test engineer for Eaton Semiconductor, we had two reps from a Belgian customer coming in to Austin to do a final checkoff of the ion implanter we had built for them.  This was our standard "proof of capability" test here in the US, before it got torn down and shipped overseas to be rebuilt at their fab in Belgium, at which point I would go over there and spend the 2-3 months performing the final tests on-site for them. 

Anyway, I'd already met them once over in Belgium so I told my boss and the sales team I'd go pick them up at at the airport.  At the time I was driving a brand new 1995 Chevy Blazer and when we walked out to my car, their eyes got really, really big.  It was their first trip to the USA and they didn't know what our cars looked like.  They couldn't believe how large and luxurious it was. One of them said, "Never have I ever been in such a car."  And man, it was just a base trim model with cloth seats-- I'd bought it for the 4x4 and tow package.

But of course I'd been to Europe already and knew what they were accustomed to, so their reaction didn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 23, 2025, 11:10:52 AM
houses, older smaller, newer larger
it's a damned waste
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 11:23:19 AM
Cars in Europe have gotten a lot bigger even over the past decade or so.  Cars in Japan are tiny, cars in Korea are about the same as here, but no light duty trucks there or in Europe (almost, I've see 3 or 4).  They use vans a lot for work vehicles so the stuff gets locked up.  Crime in France is pretty severe (theft).

In Europe, any single family house is surrounded by a significant fence front and back.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 11:27:17 AM
Cars in Europe have gotten a lot bigger even over the past decade or so.  Cars in Japan are tiny, cars in Korea are about the same as here, but no light duty trucks there or in Europe (almost, I've see 3 or 4).  They use vans a lot for work vehicles so the stuff gets locked up.  Crime in France is pretty severe (theft).

In Europe, any single family house is surrounded by a significant fence front and back.
Oh yeah they've definitely gotten larger.  But of course so have American cars.  Back then in the US there were only a handful of SUVs and lots of smaller sedans.  Now sedans and coupes are dying and the CUV/SUV has almost entirely replaced it.

My second trip to Belgium, the rental car agency gave me a Ford Mondeo, which was the same as a Ford Tempo here in the states.  That was a HUGE car by European standards and I couldn't park it anywhere.  I had to have the hotel just park it in the street in front because I couldn't get up the tiny ramp and into their gated car park behind their building.  I did that for a few days and then took it back and got a Citroen or a Fiat or something.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 11:30:00 AM
The main trend in the US over the past 20 or so years has been to CUVs, I'm guilty of that now.  I used to despise them, now I despise that I kind of like them.  Folks used to driving a Toyota Camry are now in a RAV4.  That market is hypercompetitive.  I don't know if the large trucks and SUVs are larger over two decades or not, some probably are.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 11:41:15 AM
The main trend in the US over the past 20 or so years has been to CUVs, I'm guilty of that now.  I used to despise them, now I despise that I kind of like them.  Folks used to driving a Toyota Camry are now in a RAV4.  That market is hypercompetitive.  I don't know if the large trucks and SUVs are larger over two decades or not, some probably are.


Not sure bout large SUVs, but pickups have definitely gotten larger, taller, and heavier, over the years.  Part of that is the move away from the single cab to the full crew cab, part of it is increase in horsepower/capability, and part of it is probably just good old American "bigism."  

(https://i.imgur.com/dn7YQWX.png)


I do see the average weights came down from 2010 to 2020, I suspect some of it has to do with the shift from all-steel to aluminum in some trucks, including and especially the best-selling Ford F150.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 11:44:45 AM
Pickups have definitely over 40 years, I was thinking more 20 years.

Some of the weight is due to safety advances.  A 1980 F150 looks tiny today.

(https://i.imgur.com/avsW1Kn.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 11:51:08 AM
Pickups have definitely over 40 years, I was thinking more 20 years.

An increase of 18% from 2000 to 2020.  I'd say that's quite a bit in the last 20 years (that I have infographic data for).

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 11:56:00 AM
It is, but the size hasn't increased all that much, I think, since 2005, but I could be wrong. 

I think SUVs have evolved right along with LD trucks.  

But then CUVs started to take over.  I think they are net heavier than similar sedans.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 12:12:11 PM
It is, but the size hasn't increased all that much, I think, since 2005, but I could be wrong.

Like I said, the increase of cabin size is driving an increase in vehicle size.  Despite the decrease in bed length over the decades, the past 20 years show that trucks are bigger now then they were 20 years ago.  Here's another visual:

(https://i.imgur.com/SRcPBWO.png)

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 12:15:17 PM
This increased cabin size is precisely why I bought the vehicle I ended up with.  I was replacing our family vehicle-- a large SUV-- and needed the pickup to serve as our new family vehicle.  At the time, the Ford Supercrew cab boasted the largest cabin of all of the pickups sold in the USA.  The back seat has almost 6" more than the equivalent Chevy and Dodge/Rams.


Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 12:28:22 PM
I'm especially sensitive to this subject, because there's a lot of concern nationally, over how much less safe new trucks are, specifically for pedestrians and the drivers of regular passenger vehicles.  Taller trucks, taller hood heights, worse sightlines, heavier vehicles, more damage caused when collisions occur.  These are all trending topics of conversation right now, as a result of the increases in truck sizes, including the past 20 years.

From Consumer Reports--


Quote
A CR analysis of industry data shows that the hood height of passenger trucks has increased by an average of at least 11 percent since 2000 and that new pickups grew 24 percent heavier on average from 2000 to 2018. On some heavy-duty trucks, such as the Ford F-250 (https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/ford/f-250/), the front edge of the hood is now 55 inches or more off the ground—as tall as the roof of some sedans


https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/the-hidden-danger-of-big-pickup-trucks-a9662450602/#:~:text=A%20CR%20analysis%20of%20industry,average%20from%202000%20to%202018.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 12:44:46 PM
So, trucks today are akin to SUVs with a smallish truck bed out back.

I will stipulate LT trucks have grown over the past two decades.  Occasionally I will see an "old" truck and think it a ranger or something when it's an F150, from 1980.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 23, 2025, 12:46:31 PM
Yeah, and then add in the high weight of some of the EVs due to the batteries, and you've got some vehicles on the road that are SERIOUS porkers. Especially large EV trucks/SUVs. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 12:49:59 PM
I saw the new large Cadillac EV comes in over 10,000 pounds dry before you add gas and oil.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 23, 2025, 12:55:26 PM
How does all that affect braking systems, if at all?  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 01:13:11 PM
Weight of course plays into momentum, and to stop a vehicle means converting that momentum into heat energy (or electrical energy).  Disc brakes are good at this these days, and large vehicles have larger wheels which accomodate larger brake surfaces which can be better at dissipating heat in repeated stops.  But if you lock up the brakes then it comes down to tires, which of course vary some, but larger tires also come on large vehicles.  Then there is weight distribution and weight transfer. The net of all this is usually somewhat extended stopping distances.  But we also have these 18 wheeler things that can weigh 80,000 pounds on highways.  This gets a bit complex, but weight alone doesn't translate directly into stopping distances.

newtonian mechanics - Braking distance vs. mass of the vehicle - Physics Stack Exchange (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/822764/braking-distance-vs-mass-of-the-vehicle#:~:text=We did an actual experiment,wasn't even close).)

Does weight affect braking distance for transport trucks? (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-weight-affect-braking-distance-for-transport-trucks.120420/)

Does the braking distance of a car depend on weight of the car? | ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_braking_distance_of_a_car_depend_on_weight_of_the_car)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 23, 2025, 01:25:20 PM
I saw the new large Cadillac EV comes in over 10,000 pounds dry before you add gas and oil.
Say that again, out loud, back to yourself. :57:
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 01:29:18 PM
It was intentional, of course.

2025 Cadillac Escalade IQ First Test: So Large, So in Charge (https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-cadillac-escalade-iq-electric-first-test/)

Tipping our scales at 9,134 pounds, the 2025 Cadillac Escalade IQ (https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/escalade-iq/2025/) is not only the heaviest passenger vehicle we’ve ever tested, but it’s unapologetically larger than life

The V hits 60 mph in 4.7 seconds, whereas the MotorTrend test team got the IQ there in 4.6. Not a big margin, but considering the 2,854-pound weight difference between the two, it’s not bad. In the quarter mile, the gasoline-powered model achieves 13.1 seconds at 108.3 mph; the kilowatt-swilling IQ noses ahead again, laying down 13.0 at 109.1 mph. The extra weight does hurt the IQ in braking distance, as it required 133 feet to stop from 60 mph versus 120 for the V.

I'd note this easily could be because of tire differences, and the IQ has regen braking which probably doesn't matter in this test.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 01:32:49 PM
Michelin Primacy LTX TPC 2036  LT275/50R24 121/118S M+S for the electric.

22-inch Bridgestone Alenza A/S 02 all-season tires. It's the same rubber Cadillac fits to all Escalades, and the sole setup offered on the Escalade-V.

Tires: Bridgestone Alenza A/S 02  275/50R-22 111H M+S TPC Spec 3156MS
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 01:48:59 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/U6l8bKM.png)

Seems quirky to me.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2025, 01:53:30 PM
Highly ranked?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 23, 2025, 02:00:08 PM
I guess it's some combination of affordable and ranking, of some sort.  Here, Georgia Tech is highly ranked and pretty affordable in state.  UGA is pretty well ranked for a state school and affordable, but I'd guess Tech would have the edge because I don't know if it's more expensive.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2025, 02:16:12 PM
Oregon and osu cost the same. Oregon is AAU and osu is not.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2025, 02:18:00 PM
Washington is cheaper than Wazzu. Only one of them is AAU.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 23, 2025, 02:40:31 PM
UT and A&M cost almost exactly the same for in-state residents.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: SFBadger96 on April 23, 2025, 02:48:51 PM
Oregon and osu cost the same. Oregon is AAU and osu is not.
I don't think so. I was looking at this somewhat recently, and I think Oregon State is less expensive, at least for out-of-state students, than UO.

Bigger picture: quirky is a decent way to describe it. Fluff is another.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 23, 2025, 03:32:14 PM
I don't think so. I was looking at this somewhat recently, and I think Oregon State is less expensive, at least for out-of-state students, than UO.

Bigger picture: quirky is a decent way to describe it. Fluff is another.
Yeah, I was talking in-state.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2025, 08:11:37 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ASbhfAg.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2025, 08:11:58 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4XEdhh4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2025, 08:13:21 AM
The median low mark is about $50 K and ~18 states are within $5 K of that.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 25, 2025, 09:27:47 AM
2025 NFL Draft: College football programs with most first-round picks in history (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/2025-nfl-draft-college-football-programs-with-most-first-round-picks-in-history-249201404/#2640457)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2025, 09:39:25 AM
nice and fitting that the Horns and Sooners are tied
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 25, 2025, 09:45:30 AM
nice and fitting that the Horns and Sooners are tied
Blech.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 25, 2025, 09:48:36 AM
bigger blech....... Huskers were probably #11
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 28, 2025, 10:10:56 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/WNlenWy.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 28, 2025, 10:17:09 AM
Doooooommmeeed
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 28, 2025, 11:39:40 AM
The top 3 usually end up top ten, the next 7 usually have 1-2 busts, and half ended up ranked out of that ten, then it gets close to random.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 28, 2025, 11:47:37 AM
Horns play AT #5 AT #8 and AT #10.  Doomed!

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 28, 2025, 12:41:11 PM
2025 NFL Draft: College football programs with most first-round picks in history (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/longformarticle/2025-nfl-draft-college-football-programs-with-most-first-round-picks-in-history-249201404/#2640457)

That says Will Campbell is the 5th LSU OL to ever be drafted in the first round.  I read on an LSU site the other day that he's just the second.  I wonder which is correct.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 28, 2025, 12:43:01 PM
Trump’s first 100 days are the worst for the stock market since Nixon (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/28/trumps-first-100-days-are-the-worst-for-the-stock-market-since-nixon.html)

First 100 Days for the S&P 500

Table with 4 columns and 21 rows. Currently displaying rows 1 to 20.
[th]Year[/th]
[th]President[/th]
[th]% Change[/th]
[th]Rank[/th]
[th]1945[/th]
FDR/Truman10.4%1
[th]1949[/th]
Truman−4.9%17
[th]1953[/th]
Eisenhower−5.8%18
[th]1957[/th]
Eisenhower2.5%11
[th]1961[/th]
Kennedy8.9%2
[th]1965[/th]
Johnson2.9%10
[th]1969[/th]
Nixon2.0%12
[th]1973[/th]
Nixon−9.9%21
[th]1977[/th]
Carter−4.4%16
[th]1981[/th]
Reagan0.9%14
[th]1985[/th]
Reagan5.0%8
[th]1989[/th]
Bush8.0%5
[th]1993[/th]
Clinton1.6%13
[th]1997[/th]
Clinton3.2%9
[th]2001[/th]
Bush−6.9%19
[th]2005[/th]
Bush−1.6%15
[th]2009[/th]
Obama8.4%4
[th]2013[/th]
Obama7.5%6
[th]2017[/th]
Trump5.0%7
[th]2021[/th]
Biden8.5%3



Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 28, 2025, 07:45:38 PM
Greg McElroy releases polarizing Top 10 college football quarterback rankings

Before getting started, McElroy explained he did not want to project with this list. His goal was to get quarterbacks in there who have proven themselves against “top-tier teams” in the past. That being said, let’s check out the full list from McElroy.


1. Cade Klubnik, Clemson
Klubnik ended last season on a hot streak, helping Clemson win an ACC Championship and compete in the College Football Playoff. The former five-star rating finally seems to be coming to fruition for him.
Giving Klubnik weapons has been the issue in years past. However, the Tigers have done a great job bringing some talented wide receivers in. Mix in Klubnik entering Year 3 as the starter and the formula begins to come together.


2. John Mateer, Oklahoma
Brent Venables knew Oklahoma needed a massive upgrade at quarterback heading into next season. Mateer was the easy and obvious choice from the start, given his relationship with newly hired offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle.

3. Sam Leavitt, Arizona State
Another College Football Playoff participant, Leavitt enjoyed a breakout 2024 season. The bar has now been raised — enough to where the Arizona State star rounds out the top three for McElroy.

4. Drew Allar, Penn State
Allar was just one game away from leading Penn State to the national championship game. A good core of Nittany Lions players return for the 2025 season and none are bigger than him.

5. Garrett Nussmeier, LSU
Putting his name into this year’s draft was an option for Nussmeier. Instead, the decision was to come back to Baton Rouge for his second full season as LSU’s starting quarterback.
Surpassing 4,000 yards with 25 touchdowns was a great first run for Nussmeier. Brian Kelly will now be looking to bring in the reins a little, hoping to up the completion percentage of 64.2% and see less than 12 interceptions.


6. Carson Beck, Miami
Beck leaves one of college football’s preeminent programs in Georgia and still steps into a place with massive expectations. Miami just saw Cam Ward go No. 1 overall in the NFL Draft, guiding Mario Cristobal‘s bunch to 10 wins.
An elbow injury means Beck did not participate in spring practice. He is expected to be cleared soon though, and be ready for the season opener against Notre Dame.


7. LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina
Sellers is going to be a popular name over the next 12 months. Potentially not just in the college football world either, as the dynamic dual-threat quarterback walks into his third season of college football.
To this point on McElroy’s list, Sellers is the most inexperienced player. South Carolina is hoping the jump from Year 1 to Year 2 is a massive one, pushing them into SEC contention.


8. Sawyer Robertson, Baylor
Potentially one of the more underdiscussed guys out there, Robertson finds himself at No. 8 for McElroy. Head coach Dave Aranda could potentially have one of the sport’s top signal-callers.
Robertson began his career at Mississippi State but a move to Waco has worked out for him. Over 3,000 yards, 28 touchdowns, and just eight interceptions is something Baylor would take again in a heartbeat.


9. DJ Lagway, Florida
Florida is getting a ton of preseason hype and Lagway is a big reason why. When he took over as the Gators’ full-time starter, success followed with four straight wins to end the year.
Injuries might be a concern for Lagway, currently dealing with a shoulder problem. Even so, plenty of people, not just McElroy, are high on what the sophomore can do.


10. Haynes King, Georgia Tech
King will begin the 2025 season with nearly 30 career starts under his belt, split between Georgia Tech and Texas A&M. Between COVID-19 and a redshirt year, this will be year No. 6 for King in college football.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 28, 2025, 08:48:54 PM
Ohio State at 5 seems a little bit high to me. Really tough schedule and they just lost basically everyone. And Julian Sayin might be great- but he also might not be great. Kyle McCord was a 5* QB once upon a time too. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 28, 2025, 09:07:00 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ORActoM.jpeg)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 28, 2025, 09:11:55 PM
Florida is too high.  Even if we're the 10th-best team, our schedule is stupid again. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 28, 2025, 09:30:13 PM
The top 3 usually end up top ten, the next 7 usually have 1-2 busts, and half ended up ranked out of that ten, then it gets close to random.
Who will be the 1 or 2 busts? 

Illinois would be the heavy favorite for that distinction. Bama? Florida? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 28, 2025, 09:54:57 PM
College Football post-spring Top 25: by:Andy Staples


1. Texas
If we’re going to bet on Arch Manning, we may as well go all-in and bet that he takes the Longhorns to a national title. Texas has spots to fill on the offensive line, but the Longhorns seem confident in their recruiting and the development skills of position coach Kyle Flood. On the other side of the ball, Texas brings back enough off the edge to terrorize opposing QBs every week.

2. Notre Dame
The most telling fact about Notre Dame’s offseason? Two offensive linemen who started in the national title game immediately hit the transfer portal after the season because they probably wouldn’t have starting jobs in 2025. A great offensive line is the most recession-proof factor in football. Can Notre Dame’s defense maintain the level at which it played last year? That’s the question. But injuries last season forced younger players like cornerback Leonard Moore to show us that the Fighting Irish have future stars ready to emerge. We think C.J. Carr wins the quarterback job, and a bigger arm than the Irish have had in years could unlock a downfield passing game that should complement a punishing run game.

3. Clemson
Yes, Dabo Swinney used the portal a little to fill some minor gaps in an otherwise rock-solid roster. But the most important offseason addition for the Tigers will be defensive coordinator Tom Allen. Clemson’s defensive personnel was fine last season, but it wasn’t deployed properly. Allen will fix that. That means the Cade Klubnik-led offense won’t be forced to win shootouts against better opponents. But with some promising young receivers coming of age, Clemson may just put up those points anyway.


4. Penn State
Transfer receivers Kyron Hudson (USC), Devonte Ross (Troy) and Trebor Pena (added this past weekend from Syracuse) probably will determine whether the Nittany Lions are national title contenders or a very good team that makes the College Football Playoff but doesn’t make it until the end. Penn State has just about everything else. The Nittany Lions lost the aforementioned Allen to Clemson and replaced him with Jim Knowles, who was last seen helping Ohio State win a national title.

5. Ohio State
The Buckeyes have a lot to replace on both lines of scrimmage, and they’ll be breaking in a new quarterback. But having the nation’s best returning offensive player (receiver Jeremiah Smith) and the nation’s best returning defensive player (safety Caleb Downs) is incredible foundation on which to build.

6. Oregon
Dan Lanning has proven in his three seasons that he’ll have the Ducks stocked to compete. Oregon hit the portal to shore up the offensive line with Nevada tackle Isaiah World and USC guard Emmanuel Pregnon. Safety Dillon Thieneman (Purdue) might be the most impactful defensive transfer of the offseason. Quarterback Dante Moore sat behind Dillon Gabriel for a season. Now he gets his chance to shine in coordinator Will Stein’s offense.

7. Alabama
I moved Alabama into the top 10 because every time I look at the Crimson Tide’s depth chart, I get less worried about the quarterback competition. Whoever wins the job — Ty Simpson looks like the favorite — is going to have serious talent around him and a defense that should take pressure off the offense.

8. Georgia
This feels low for the Bulldogs considering what they’ve been in the Kirby Smart era. But the fear is that the supply of aliens on the defensive line is running short. Georgia remains one of the most talented rosters in the sport, but it feels as if the other contenders have caught the Bulldogs in terms of depth. Still, the additions of receivers Noah Thomas (Texas A&M) and Zachariah Branch (USC) suggest the offense could be more dynamic than it was last year.

9. Illinois
Illini coach Bret Bielema said his level of concern that quarterback Luke Altmyer would leave in the spring transfer portal was “zero-point-zero.” He was right, because Altmyer isn’t that type. But lots of other teams would love to have Altmyer, who was sneakily one of the nation’s most efficient QBs in 2024. The Illini return most of the core that led a 10-win team last year, and a College Football Playoff berth should be a realistic expectation.

10. Florida
If QB D.J. Lagway resumes throwing again and his shoulder feels great, then Florida can play with anyone on its brutal schedule. The addition of UCLA transfer receiver J. Michael Sturdivant had the Gators excited, but five-star freshman Dallas Wilson flashing early in spring practice sent expectations for the offense into overdrive. But if Lagway’s shoulder remains an issue, this will be a very different conversation come preseason camp.

11. Texas Tech
The Red Raiders are this season’s version of last season’s Ole Miss team. They went all-in on the transfer portal, spending a fortune to upgrade their roster with players who probably wouldn’t have considered Texas Tech in previous years. It almost worked for the Rebels, but they came up one win short last season. Can the Red Raiders turn the spending into a CFP berth? On paper, they now have the Big 12’s most talented roster. But they still need to prove this group can play together.


12. South Carolina
The Gamecocks now fully understand the capabilities of QB LaNorris Sellers, and that has sent expectations through the roof. The schedule is daunting, but South Carolina now has the kind of premium players (edge Dylan Stewart and offensive tackle Josiah Thompson) that are required to reach the level to which they aspire.

13. Auburn
Having Auburn this high was the most controversial aspect of the way-too-early ranking we released in January, but I haven’t backed off my belief that the Tigers were not nearly as bad as their record last season and that even a slight improvement can make a big difference in the win column. Can Oklahoma transfer Jackson Arnold be better than he was in Norman last year? Throwing to Cam Coleman and Georgia Tech transfer Eric Singleton Jr. should make any QB better.


14. SMU
The Mustangs bring back a ton from a team that made the CFP and shocked everyone in its first ACC season. No one is going to be shocked this season, but Rhett Lashlee’s team should remain a contender in an ACC that feels deeper at the top this season. QB Kevin Jennings needs to shake off brutal performances in the ACC title game and the CFP first-round loss at Penn State, but those could turn into learning experiences that help SMU going forward.

15. LSU
The Tigers hit the portal hard to shore up a defense that has been below LSU’s standard from a talent perspective. But just as promising is the possibility that freshmen like cornerback D.J. Pickett look like the freaks LSU used to bring in every recruiting class. QB Garrett Nussmeier is excellent, and if the Tigers can replenish a line that is mostly off to the NFL, they should compete for a CFP berth.


16. Arizona State
The Sun Devils lose tailback Cam Skattebo but bring back QB Sam Leavitt. Plus, Leavitt gets to throw again to Jordyn Tyson, who missed the Big 12 title game and the Peach Bowl with an injury. Kenny Dillingham is building a power in the desert, but there is no guarantee that Arizona State can repeat. The margins at the top of the Big 12 are razor-thin, and Leavitt is just one of a group of quality veteran QBs in the league.

17. Michigan
If Michigan’s offense can be even slightly above-average, then I have the Wolverines ranked too low. It appears freshman QB Bryce Underwood may have to be the day-one starter, which wasn’t the original plan. If he needs some time to develop, then it could look like last year for a little while. If he immediately lives up to his recruiting hype, then Michigan becomes a title contender again.

18. BYU
Remember what I said about a group of quality veteran QBs in the Big 12? Jake Retzlaff certainly qualifies. The Cougars bring back a lot from a team that stayed in the Big 12 title race until the end of the season. Expect them to be in the hunt all of this season as well.

19. Ole Miss
The Rebels probably missed a golden opportunity last year, but that doesn’t mean the window is closed. QB Austin Simmons might be the best new starter this season, and if he is, then I have Ole Miss too low. Lane Kiffin has raised the floor for the Rebels so much that this kind of preseason ranking probably feels like a disappointment. It would have felt like a compliment for most of the program’s history. But if this is where your team is when it’s “rebuilding,” then your program is in a very healthy place.


20. Miami
I’m less worried about QB Carson Beck’s return from elbow surgery than I am about Miami’s ability to replace some excellent receivers. The offensive line should be great, though, and that should make everything easier. Whether Miami winds up around here or playing for the ACC title and a CFP berth likely will depend on how well new coordinator Corey Hetherman improves the defense.

21. Tennessee
I didn’t drop Tennessee from the teens (in the January ranking) just because QB Nico Iamaleava left. When I left Iamaleava out of my top 10 QB rankings — which made Tennessee fans quite mad at first and quite happy two days later — it was because of doubts in general about the offense. I’m not concerned about the defense. But the Volunteers will need some young playmakers on offense to step up and help whoever wins the QB job — whether it’s Appalachian State/UCLA transfer Joey Aguilar, redshirt freshman Jake Merklinger or true freshman George MacIntyre.


22. Nebraska
The Cornhuskers upgraded their offensive talent in the transfer portal this offseason. Former Kentucky receiver Dane Key, former Alabama offensive tackle Elijah Pritchett and former Notre Dame guard Rocco Spindler should help QB Dylan Raiola in his second year as the starter. The question is whether Nebraska can stay as good on defense after losses to the draft and the portal and the departure of coordinator Tony White to Florida State. New coordinator John Butler was hired last year with the intent that he would ultimately replace White, so perhaps the transition will be smooth.

23. Iowa State
Rocco Becht — yet another one of those excellent returning Big 12 QBs — will have to break in some new favorite targets, but I’m done doubting coach Matt Campbell. When he has a QB, the Cyclones punch well above their weight class.

24. Louisville
The Cardinals played one of the tougher ACC schedules last season and weren’t quite good enough. But this may be a better overall team playing against an easier schedule. We’ll see if coach Jeff Brohm — a noted QB whisperer — can get out of Miller Moss what fellow noted QB whisperer Lincoln Riley couldn’t. We saw in the Sun Bowl win against Washington what Louisville had hoped to get from receiver Caullin Lacy through all of 2024, but an injury forced Lacy to redshirt. If the Cardinals get that production in 2025, the offense could be dangerous.

25. Iowa
The Hawkeyes took a slight step back on defense last season and the quarterback play was as abysmal as it had been the previous few years, but as usual they put together a solid season. Now they bring in QB Mark Gronowski from South Dakota State. Gronowski, the 2023 Walter Payton Award winner, might be able to turn Iowa into a functional offense. If that happens, watch out. The Hawkeyes might rise from fringe top-25 team to CFP contender.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 28, 2025, 10:02:49 PM
Who will be the 1 or 2 busts?

Illinois would be the heavy favorite for that distinction. Bama? Florida?
I can't call a team a bust unless you look at their schedule and they're likely (before the season starts) to go 11-1 or 10-2.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 28, 2025, 10:50:01 PM
I can't call a team a bust unless you look at their schedule and they're likely (before the season starts) to go 11-1 or 10-2. 

If there's one top ten team that can't hang with the others, then they'd clearly be the bust. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MrNubbz on April 29, 2025, 06:15:03 AM
College Football post-spring Top 25: by:Andy Staples

Good Find FF

1. Texas
If we’re going to bet on Arch Manning, we may as well go all-in and bet that he takes the Longhorns to a national title. Texas has spots to fill on the offensive line, but the Longhorns seem confident in their recruiting and the development skills of position coach Kyle Flood. On the other side of the ball, Texas brings back enough off the edge to terrorize opposing QBs every week.

Probably going to stay there



3. Clemson
Yes, Dabo Swinney used the portal a little to fill some minor gaps in an otherwise rock-solid roster. But the most important offseason addition for the Tigers will be defensive coordinator Tom Allen. Clemson’s defensive personnel was fine last season, but it wasn’t deployed properly. Allen will fix that. That means the Cade Klubnik-led offense won’t be forced to win shootouts against better opponents. But with some promising young receivers coming of age, Clemson may just put up those points anyway.

Hope they're nowhere around here less Dabo is always a good thing for CFB



9. Illinois
Illini coach Bret Bielema said his level of concern that quarterback Luke Altmyer would leave in the spring transfer portal was “zero-point-zero.” He was right, because Altmyer isn’t that type. But lots of other teams would love to have Altmyer, who was sneakily one of the nation’s most efficient QBs in 2024. The Illini return most of the core that led a 10-win team last year, and a College Football Playoff berth should be a realistic expectation.

Love to see it

I don't see tOSU finishing anywhere near the Top Ten. Hell prolly 4th in the BIG and that might be a little generous. Roster had just one big EXIT sign on it after January

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 29, 2025, 08:19:45 AM
Every year I find it easier to find teams I think are over rated, but much harder to find the reverse.

Every team has issues of one sort or another.  Dropping one means propping up some others, which may not be merited.

I would rather try and group teams rather than debate whether #12 is over rated and should be only 13.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 29, 2025, 08:36:39 AM
I can't call a team a bust unless you look at their schedule and they're likely (before the season starts) to go 11-1 or 10-2. 
(https://i.imgur.com/PMe5nUL.png)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 29, 2025, 08:44:15 AM
10-2
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 29, 2025, 09:56:35 AM
Florida is too high.  Even if we're the 10th-best team, our schedule is stupid again.
So if you're the 10th-best team in the country, but your schedule is that you face teams #1-9 during the season, does that mean if you finish 3-6 against those teams, 3-0 vs other teams, to finish 6-6, you're NOT still the 10th-best team in the country at the end of the season? 

I mean, are these power rankings or are they "projected rankings at end of year where we mostly just count the losses" rankings?
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 29, 2025, 09:58:34 AM
It's rarely very clear what rankings are meant to suggest, to me anyway.  As noted above, a 6-6 team could be quite a good team (or not).  An 8-4 team can easily be better than a 11-1 team that would be ranked a lot higher.  Does this take schedule into account?  Or is it some power ranking?

These are mostly guesses based on how teams finished last year obviously.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on April 29, 2025, 10:09:14 AM
I know. 

If I were making a preseason ranking, it would be a power ranking, not a prediction of finish. Because the goal--to me, anyway--of a preseason ranking is assessing the quality of teams on your schedule. 

So if you're legitimately the 10th best team in the country, but you realize that you play 5 of the top 9, and 4 of those games are away, well, you know you're going to be hard pressed to even go 1-3 in those games. Which means you might be already penciling in 3 losses, and losing another game here or there means you might finish the season 8-4 or 7-5, and ranked 20th. Despite being the 10th-best team.

However, if someone preseason already bakes that in and ranks you 20th, then you look at your schedule and think you're going to be facing 7 of the top 19, and 6 of THOSE are going to be away, and you might think you're staring down the barrel of a 6-6 or losing season. Despite being the 10th-best team. 

Which is all me just overanalyzing stupid mindless clickbait produced to generate arguments. 

So maybe I should shut up. Especially since I haven't followed ANY of these rosters and don't have a clue what's going to happen in CFB. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 29, 2025, 10:09:46 AM
Florida is too high.  Even if we're the 10th-best team, our schedule is stupid again.
(https://i.imgur.com/BNFmo81.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/cQgOFDl.png)


Wisconsin has zero trophies in the case for the first time since probably before Barry. That has to change.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 29, 2025, 10:23:05 AM
4 losses for Florida - 5 losses for the Badgers
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 29, 2025, 10:42:50 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/WNlenWy.jpeg)
Thank god A&M isn't anywhere on this list.  We always do rather poorly when we're near the top of some pre-season list.  

Also, we usually do rather poorly when we're near the bottom of some pre-season list.

Oh, and we usually do pretty poorly when we're not even on some pre-season list.  But I digress.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 29, 2025, 10:45:51 AM
UGA basically has a five game schedule, which is not unusual of course.  The OOC slate is Tech and ... blech.  They once had UCLA scheduled but ...

At Tennessee
Florida
Texas
Ole Miss
Alabama

All those away games last year revert to Athens.  And they play Tech in the MB Dome in Atlanta which is a bit odd.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 29, 2025, 03:13:42 PM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-footballs-top-150-players-of-2025-the-definitive-spring-rankings-led-by-ohio-states-jeremiah-smith/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ-AzxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEyY0JUbVMwY3N4SjVhc09uAR5H53iAkVcJ3-ZIjTZAHFiGGBY1eK-Pa-010cueO9IOaHoX6-84l_nyDTD_Hw_aem_uE2JWVkvQRAFKNLK8mcyWw (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-footballs-top-150-players-of-2025-the-definitive-spring-rankings-led-by-ohio-states-jeremiah-smith/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ-AzxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEyY0JUbVMwY3N4SjVhc09uAR5H53iAkVcJ3-ZIjTZAHFiGGBY1eK-Pa-010cueO9IOaHoX6-84l_nyDTD_Hw_aem_uE2JWVkvQRAFKNLK8mcyWw)

College Football's Top 150 Players of 2025: The definitive spring rankings, led by Ohio State's Jeremiah Smith
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 29, 2025, 07:45:29 PM
definitive?
IMO cbssports is ass.  Am I way off on that?  I've never been impressed with them.  

Sellers on USCe isn't the 3rd-best QB, much less the 3rd-best player overall.  It's a joke.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 29, 2025, 08:17:13 PM
It's a definitive opinion
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 29, 2025, 09:42:55 PM

How do you rank your team's last five head coaches? 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 30, 2025, 07:23:52 AM
How do you rank your team's last five head coaches?
1. The Emperor (A)
2. Bert (B+)
3. Chryst (B)
4. Andersen (C-)
5. Fick (I)
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 08:17:48 AM
How do you rank your team's last five head coaches?
This is a bit amusing, to me, because "we" rank HCs on the basis of wins and losses almost without exception.  So, you could post just WPTC and go from there.

1.  Smart - The inevitable smart choice.  0.85
2.  Richt - Because his teams averaged ten wins a season.  074
3.  Dooley - Because he won quite a bit often with mediocre talent.  0.70
4.  Donnan - Because he's not last.  0.68
5.  Goff (Ray) - Well, he, um, didn't have much success.  0.57

Figures are winning percentage without the %.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 30, 2025, 08:24:57 AM
This is a bit amusing, to me, because "we" rank HCs on the basis of wins and losses almost without exception.  So, you could post just WPTC and go from there.
nah, national titles, record vs your rival, conference titles, caught cheating all come into play
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 30, 2025, 08:31:49 AM
1 - Pelini - winning % - a couple conference champ game losses
2 - Rhule - incomplete but won a bowl game
3 - Riley - worse winning % than Callahan, but didn't drop the handoff from Solich
4 - Callahan
5 - Frost - head shaker
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 08:31:54 AM
nah, national titles, record vs your rival, conference titles, caught cheating all come into play
Yes, a bit, but they usually correlate with winning percentage.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: FearlessF on April 30, 2025, 08:41:50 AM
usually, some Buckeye fans might speak up

Osborne had a great winning percentage. rivaling Devaney, but couldn't beat Oklahoma and didn't win a national title until late.  Tom nearly left or was fired a few times in the 70's and 80's 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 30, 2025, 08:48:25 AM
Mack Brown
Steve Sarkisian
John Mackovic
Tweedle Dee
Tweedle Dumb
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 08:54:31 AM
Hard to imagine being at UGA and only winning 57% of your games.  Usually three games are pastries, at least four conference games are against lesser talented teams at worst.  7-5 is 58%, split your bowl games against weak opponents ... not very good at all.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 30, 2025, 10:33:37 AM
Tweedle Dee
Tweedle Dumb

Which is Strong and which is Herman?  Inquiring minds want to know.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 30, 2025, 10:38:50 AM
Les Miles -- you are what your record says you are, and I'm not grading on sentence structure or grass intake
Nick Saban -- great culture builder who proved DiNardo wrong about LSU's ceiling
Brian Kelly -- ahead of Orgeron because his floor is higher, but clearly behind the first two
Ed Orgeron -- yaw yaw yawcrawfish, yaw yaw etoufee, yawyawyaawwwww2019
Gerry DiNardo -- thanks for bringing the magic back.  Now, even 25 years later, GTFO

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 30, 2025, 10:42:30 AM
Which is Strong and which is Herman?  Inquiring minds want to know. 
Take your pick.  Doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 30, 2025, 10:51:24 AM
Slocum
Sumlin 
Jimbo
Elko but too early
Fran dead last by a mile. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 30, 2025, 10:54:34 AM
I never understood the firing of Slocum, but it was probably time I guess.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 30, 2025, 10:58:53 AM
I wish to include the previous six coaches, because I'd like the chance to create a side list including Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Satan, and then rank Curly Hallman below them. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 30, 2025, 11:50:20 AM
How do you rank your team's last five head coaches?
1) Sherrone Moore - Incomplete

2) Jeem: A-

3) Brady Hoke: D (only reason he doesn't get an F is he went 11-2 in his first year and won a BCS bowl- which was a fluke) 

4) RichRod: F 

5) Lloyd Carr: A 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 30, 2025, 11:51:03 AM
definitive?
IMO cbssports is ass.  Am I way off on that?  I've never been impressed with them. 

Sellers on USCe isn't the 3rd-best QB, much less the 3rd-best player overall.  It's a joke.
no, you're not way off. CBS Sports is ass. So is ESPN though. Pretty much most of mainstream sports media is.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: 847badgerfan on April 30, 2025, 11:54:46 AM
CBS owns 247.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 30, 2025, 11:54:58 AM
Greg McElroy releases polarizing Top 10 college football quarterback rankings

Before getting started, McElroy explained he did not want to project with this list. His goal was to get quarterbacks in there who have proven themselves against “top-tier teams” in the past. That being said, let’s check out the full list from McElroy.


1. Cade Klubnik, Clemson
Klubnik ended last season on a hot streak, helping Clemson win an ACC Championship and compete in the College Football Playoff. The former five-star rating finally seems to be coming to fruition for him.
Giving Klubnik weapons has been the issue in years past. However, the Tigers have done a great job bringing some talented wide receivers in. Mix in Klubnik entering Year 3 as the starter and the formula begins to come together.


2. John Mateer, Oklahoma
Brent Venables knew Oklahoma needed a massive upgrade at quarterback heading into next season. Mateer was the easy and obvious choice from the start, given his relationship with newly hired offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle.

3. Sam Leavitt, Arizona State
Another College Football Playoff participant, Leavitt enjoyed a breakout 2024 season. The bar has now been raised — enough to where the Arizona State star rounds out the top three for McElroy.

4. Drew Allar, Penn State
Allar was just one game away from leading Penn State to the national championship game. A good core of Nittany Lions players return for the 2025 season and none are bigger than him.

5. Garrett Nussmeier, LSU
Putting his name into this year’s draft was an option for Nussmeier. Instead, the decision was to come back to Baton Rouge for his second full season as LSU’s starting quarterback.
Surpassing 4,000 yards with 25 touchdowns was a great first run for Nussmeier. Brian Kelly will now be looking to bring in the reins a little, hoping to up the completion percentage of 64.2% and see less than 12 interceptions.


6. Carson Beck, Miami
Beck leaves one of college football’s preeminent programs in Georgia and still steps into a place with massive expectations. Miami just saw Cam Ward go No. 1 overall in the NFL Draft, guiding Mario Cristobal‘s bunch to 10 wins.
An elbow injury means Beck did not participate in spring practice. He is expected to be cleared soon though, and be ready for the season opener against Notre Dame.


7. LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina
Sellers is going to be a popular name over the next 12 months. Potentially not just in the college football world either, as the dynamic dual-threat quarterback walks into his third season of college football.
To this point on McElroy’s list, Sellers is the most inexperienced player. South Carolina is hoping the jump from Year 1 to Year 2 is a massive one, pushing them into SEC contention.


8. Sawyer Robertson, Baylor
Potentially one of the more underdiscussed guys out there, Robertson finds himself at No. 8 for McElroy. Head coach Dave Aranda could potentially have one of the sport’s top signal-callers.
Robertson began his career at Mississippi State but a move to Waco has worked out for him. Over 3,000 yards, 28 touchdowns, and just eight interceptions is something Baylor would take again in a heartbeat.


9. DJ Lagway, Florida
Florida is getting a ton of preseason hype and Lagway is a big reason why. When he took over as the Gators’ full-time starter, success followed with four straight wins to end the year.
Injuries might be a concern for Lagway, currently dealing with a shoulder problem. Even so, plenty of people, not just McElroy, are high on what the sophomore can do.


10. Haynes King, Georgia Tech
King will begin the 2025 season with nearly 30 career starts under his belt, split between Georgia Tech and Texas A&M. Between COVID-19 and a redshirt year, this will be year No. 6 for King in college football.
yeah either this list really sucks or this QB crop really sucks. YUCK. 

Arch Manning will be better than every QB on this list in 2025 imo. DJ Lagway is going to be a lot better than 9th by the time the season is over imo. He's a stud, big-time talent. Drew Allar and Garrett Nussmeier are mediocre ass imo. Carson Beck is a hard one for me to figure out. We'll see how he bounces back in his new situation but he was dealing with injury and had a pretty bad slump in his 2nd year of starting but at least I've seen flashes out of him. I've seen nothing out of Drew Allar or Garrett Nussmeier to have them anywhere near a top 10 QB list. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 30, 2025, 12:23:36 PM
Nuss did really well last year, overall.  The interior of his line made him look worse than he was, several time per game, but he showed quite a lot, especially for a first year starter.  His biggest weakness was his unwillingness to run and/or his lack of awareness that it was open and necessary.  Jury is out on if that will improve, but not having a center and both guards get caved into him every other play would be a big help for him.  Not sure he's going to get that, though.  This OL will almost certainly be worse than last year's.  
 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 01:03:10 PM
I kind of like Haynes King, he's pretty good, not NFL good.  He sort of a Stetson Bennett.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 30, 2025, 01:13:14 PM
I never understood the firing of Slocum, but it was probably time I guess.
The main reason was he was being passed by Mack Brown and Bob Stoops.  

A couple of things happened at the end of Slocum's tenure as coach that probably skewed his record.  We fell behind in the recruiting wars, we didn't invest in facilities early enough and by the time we started both OU and UT had top notch facilities to attract much better recruits. 

The big issue with Slocum, in my opinion, is not how much he lost to OU and UT, but how much he lost to TxTech, Mizzou, Kansas State, and the rest.  In reality, nobody in the Big XII could have kept up with Stoops and OU.  They were the Blue Blood at the top of their game.  Winning 25% of the games against them would have been seen as progress.  I think Slocum won 1/4, with close losses in 2000 and blowouts in '99, 01. We won the 2002 game, defeated #1 OU at Kyle.   I bet Mack didn't fare much better, but maybe 30-40%W and Texas was doing very well at that time.  

The mistake A&M made at the time was letting the 2nd and 3rd best recruits get away.  We spent so much time recruiting the same players as OU/Tex that we didn't end up signing that some of the best recruits of the era went to TT, KSU, oSu, and TCU.  We could have easily fielded a top 10 team of the 2000's if we simply focused on the "best of the rest".  Adrian Peterson is a good example of that.  It was reported at the time that it was between OU and A&M (I think it was around 2002 timeframe).  I don't think I can tell you who the RB was for A&M from that era, but I'd be certain that some of the ones that played for the other teams were probably a lot better.  The only one that stands out to me from that timeframe was Jovorskie Lane, and he was a FB that played RB.  
Anyways, a lot of the frustration around Slocum was based on the fact that he was in his 12th year, and not only were we losing to OU/Texas but now we were losing regularly to TT, KSU, Mizzou, and oSu.  I don't disagree with the change, it was just who we hired that was the biggest mistake.  Fran was an abject disaster.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 30, 2025, 01:14:23 PM
I kind of like Haynes King, he's pretty good, not NFL good.  He sort of a Stetson Bennett.
Poor kid couldn't make it through the first couple of games at A&M without being injured for the year.  Glad to see he's doing well.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 30, 2025, 01:16:37 PM
The main reason was he was being passed by Mack Brown and Bob Stoops. 

A couple of things happened at the end of Slocum's tenure as coach that probably skewed his record.  We fell behind in the recruiting wars, we didn't invest in facilities early enough and by the time we started both OU and UT had top notch facilities to attract much better recruits. 

The big issue with Slocum, in my opinion, is not how much he lost to OU and UT, but how much he lost to TxTech, Mizzou, Kansas State, and the rest.  In reality, nobody in the Big XII could have kept up with Stoops and OU.  They were the Blue Blood at the top of their game.  Winning 25% of the games against them would have been seen as progress.  I think Slocum won 1/4, with close losses in 2000 and blowouts in '99, 01. We won the 2002 game, defeated #1 OU at Kyle.  I bet Mack didn't fare much better, but maybe 30-40%W and Texas was doing very well at that time. 

The mistake A&M made at the time was letting the 2nd and 3rd best recruits get away.  We spent so much time recruiting the same players as OU/Tex that we didn't end up signing that some of the best recruits of the era went to TT, KSU, oSu, and TCU.  We could have easily fielded a top 10 team of the 2000's if we simply focused on the "best of the rest".  Adrian Peterson is a good example of that.  It was reported at the time that it was between OU and A&M (I think it was around 2002 timeframe).  I don't think I can tell you who the RB was for A&M from that era, but I'd be certain that some of the ones that played for the other teams were probably a lot better.  The only one that stands out to me from that timeframe was Jovorskie Lane, and he was a FB that played RB. 
Anyways, a lot of the frustration around Slocum was based on the fact that he was in his 12th year, and not only were we losing to OU/Texas but now we were losing regularly to TT, KSU, Mizzou, and oSu.  I don't disagree with the change, it was just who we hired that was the biggest mistake.  Fran was an abject disaster. 
Yup, as an outsider but with close ties to some Ags, this was my impression as well.

And I honestly thought Franchione was going to do well at TAMU.  Hindsight's 20/20 of course, but at the time that looked like a good hire, at least in my opinion.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 30, 2025, 01:19:35 PM
Yup, as an outsider but with close ties to some Ags, this was my impression as well.

And I honestly thought Franchione was going to do well at TAMU.  Hindsight's 20/20 of course, but at the time that looked like a good hire, at least in my opinion.
Fran came so close to having a good season in 2004 and 2006.  In 2006 we had a chance to win the Big 12 but ended up letting one slip to OU that we should have won and lost a couple of other games we should have won.  Memorably, that was the year we beat UT in Austin (first time winning in Austin for my fandom) 12-7, knocking them out of the Big 12 CCG. 

I just realized I completely forgot about Mike Sherman in my "last 5 coaches" ranking.  Slocum was 6 coaches ago !

The problem with Fran is that when things went bad, they went 77-0 bad.  Like France Vs Germany 1940 bad.  I wish somebody would write a "behind the program" book about that era of Aggie football  now that we're 20 years past.  I would love to know WTH happened to be so bad.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 30, 2025, 03:16:02 PM
And I honestly thought Franchione was going to do well at TAMU.  Hindsight's 20/20 of course, but at the time that looked like a good hire, at least in my opinion.
Shit I thought Jimbo was going to be a home run for A&M. He won a natty under Saban at LSU as the OC and put out bunch of nfl draft picks on offense then went and revived Florida State from the dead and won a natty and put out a bunch of nfl draft picks on offense, then he goes to A&M and….womp womp womp. 

Just goes to show no such thing as sure things in coaching hires. Outside of Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh I can’t think of a single coach that was a smashing success at multiple spots pretty much everywhere they went. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 03:17:49 PM
Just goes to show no such thing as sure things in coaching hires. Outside of Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh I can’t think of a single coach that was a smashing success at multiple spots pretty much everywhere they went.
Steve Spurrier.  John Heisman did pretty well too.  Urban Meyer would make the list I think, perhaps even at the top of it.

Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Mdot21 on April 30, 2025, 03:20:59 PM
Steve Spurrier.  John Heisman did pretty well too.  Urban Meyer would make the list I think, perhaps even at the top of it.
Spurrier and Urbz were absolute dumpster fires in the nfl. 

Nick had elite defenses in the nfl and was at least .500 and would’ve been highly successful had Miami ownership let him sign Drew Brees instead of Daunte fucking Culpepper who was washed up with a Swiss cheese knee at that point in time. 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Cincydawg on April 30, 2025, 03:26:39 PM
I was thinking college only.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: MikeDeTiger on April 30, 2025, 04:02:06 PM
Pete Carroll.

I mean, some of his Seahawks teams weren't stellar, but they won a SB and should've won another if they'd have just RTDB. 

Little dispute, I'd think, that he was one of the best while at USC.  
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: utee94 on April 30, 2025, 04:39:17 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about NFL coaching success so I definitely count Urbie into that mix.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Gigem on April 30, 2025, 04:45:27 PM
Shit I thought Jimbo was going to be a home run for A&M. He won a natty under Saban at LSU as the OC and put out bunch of nfl draft picks on offense then went and revived Florida State from the dead and won a natty and put out a bunch of nfl draft picks on offense, then he goes to A&M and….womp womp womp.

Just goes to show no such thing as sure things in coaching hires. Outside of Nick Saban & Jim Harbaugh I can’t think of a single coach that was a smashing success at multiple spots pretty much everywhere they went.
Jimbo was close to being "on fire" his first two years at A&M.  Close losses to UGA and Clemson when they were elite, pretty good overall (8-5 2019 and 9-4 2018) including our first SEC victory over LSU (74-72!). 
Third year, 2020 the season was shortened due to COVID.  Could have been a 10-12 win team.  Beat everybody except Bama who throttled everybody including Ohio State in the NC.  Barely missed the CFP, but throttled UNC and Mack Brown in the Orange Bowl.  Finished 3rd or 4th in the final ranking, our highest in decades. 

Then, we gave him a guaranteed raise and the boosters went crazy with NIL money.  The result was we appeared to have a checked out coach and a bunch of talented but dysfunctional recruits.  Some with criminal tendencies or worse.  We then dropped back to our typical 8-4 type of seasons, then 5-7 but still beat Bama that year.  Then we canned him before the end of the '23 season.  Still on the hook for $77 or so million dollars to not coach. 
A&M might as well change their name to the 8-4's, because that's just our MO.  All the money in the world, and not much to show for it except "that close". 
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on April 30, 2025, 09:06:21 PM
Spurrier and Urbz were absolute dumpster fires in the nfl.

Nick had elite defenses in the nfl and was at least .500 and would’ve been highly successful had Miami ownership let him sign Drew Brees instead of Daunte fucking Culpepper who was washed up with a Swiss cheese knee at that point in time.
lol, this is about college football, but your "yeah, but" for Saban's NFL stint is hilarious! 

Spurrier won an ACC title at DUKE, owned the SEC for a decade w/ a NC at Florida, and then gave South Carolina the 3-best seasons in their entire history... in 3 consecutive years.

Meyer went undefeated at Utah, 2 NCs at Florida, and both undefeated and NC seasons at OSU.
mdot:  Not good enough, they were ass in the NFL.

You cannot be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Rankings ... ugh
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on April 30, 2025, 10:36:39 PM
lol, this is about college football, but your "yeah, but" for Saban's NFL stint is hilarious! 

Spurrier won an ACC title at DUKE, owned the SEC for a decade w/ a NC at Florida, and then gave South Carolina the 3-best seasons in their entire history... in 3 consecutive years.

Meyer went undefeated at Utah, 2 NCs at Florida, and both undefeated and NC seasons at OSU.
mdot:  Not good enough, they were ass in the NFL.

You cannot be taken seriously.


Who would win between Spurrier's Redskins vs Urban's Jags? (adjust for time period in a manner similar to what you do with your game)