I’m proud of that Cowboys team and thankful they made this season so much fun, it certainly wasn’t unexpected in preseason and after the San Francisco game. I’m hopeful Witten and Romo and some of the others I view as dedicated hard workers with a pure heart for the game will finally win a Super Bowl, but that window sure is closing. And that’s one thing that college football will never provide you, that John Elway or Michael Strahan moment of the old veteran fighting each year, getting ever so close, and then finally reaching that mountain top at the end of a long journeyed career.
As I’ve said before, I don’t blame the outcome of a game on one play or one call. The Cowboys should have held on to an eight point lead and capitalized on other opportunities.
“That call” is going to overshadow DeMarco Murray fumbling.
Dez Bryant is the king of making an impactful great catch towards the end of game only for reply to rule it incomplete. Of course there was yesterday, and then there was that time his pinkie was out of bounds against the Giants. Either way, I still support the use of replay, the rules of interpretation just need to be refined.
There’s been a pattern of teams like the Cowboys not doing so well the next season. Gulp.
Regarding major roster changes for next year, unless Jerry goes back to his feeling loyal to his players days, I don’t see DeMarco back, but instead Adrian Peterson taking his place. I also see Weeden gone as the backup and beefing up the defense.
Personally, I don’t think Dez let the ball hit the ground. When I look at the replay from the angels that the officials were provided, it isn’t clear that the ball actually hit the ground. Perhaps it’s my Cowboys shaded glasses, but I thought Dez’s forearm prevented the ball from hitting the ground. I don’t think the ball was right on top of his arm, but a bit on the side but enough to be off the ground. Or if the ball did hit the ground, I didn’t see that the replay found it conclusive, and if it isn’t conclusive, then you stick with the ruling on the field. C’est la vie.
I wonder how things would have been handled logistically if the Cowboys had to play a home game yesterday and the College Football Playoff Championship had to be played the next night at AT&T Stadium. I’m guessing a lot of people working overnight.
Gregg Doyel (@GreggDoyelStar) – Peyton Manning outside locker room. His tiny son in a tiny Broncos 18 jersey comes running. Bawling. Peyton on a knee. Hugging.
While going on an ill-advised McDonald’s run Saturday night I heard Sporting News Radio state that because Ohio State’s semester has not yet started, unlike Oregon, their football team can hold unlimited practices before the championship game.
Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) – Oregon graduation rate for all students: 67% For the football team? 54% (H/T @hollyhacker)
Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) – Ohio State graduation rate for all students: 83%. For the football team? 64% (H/T @hollyhacker)
Since the great Brent Musburger isn’t doing the College Playoff Championship Game, I’m going to explore the ESPN Megacast options, in particular the Film Room, Sounds of the Game, Spider Cam, Student Section, and Data Center. It should be a fun experiment in viewing.
I often hear the phrase the “everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time”, but sometimes I’ll sit on the edge of my bed and will actually put my pants on two legs at a time.
I hope the NFL Network will do “A Football Life” episode on Bob Hayes and Hollywood Henderson one day.
I doubt I’ll get it, but I’ll prefer a Seattle and Indianapolis Super Bowl.
When it comes to talking to your kids about the birds and the bees, it’s going to be different for each family and each child, but a reader sent me this PDF of a children’s book that’s no longer in print that you might find very helpful. I think it’s extremely well done.
Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress – The senator is on-record denying climate change and has regularly pushed for government cutbacks – Well, he does represent a large percentage of them that work in Houston at the Johnson Space Center.
I recently found out that Demi Lovato’s mother use to be a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader and rocked quite the perm.
The ‘Mythbusters’ special on ‘The Simpsons’ was much better than expected, and I like the new format without the trio of Grant, Tory, and Kari, though I know a lot of guys will miss the eye candy.
This year was the first year my 7-yr-old son ever really cared about watching football. Of course, he quickly adopted the Cowboys as "his" team. (I'm a lifelong Redskins fan, but gave up on them and the NFL. Still…this pained me.) I was happy for him that this year the Cowboys did so well, but when they lost yesterday, he wept. He was crushed in that way that only little boys can be crushed when their team fills them with hope and then comes so close and loses. It hurt my heart to see him so sad, and to know that this was among the first in a string of many disappointments he would face in life. I held him yesterday while he cried, knowing that, while I wouldn't be there to hold him every single time this happened in the future, I could be there in that moment. The Cowboys lost yesterday, and my little boy got one step closer to being a man. Man, that sucked.
All that being said, I think the refs got it right. I think the rule is wrong and a bad one, but based on all the "expert" explanations I've heard, it appears the call was correct. At least to me. I just hate it when a game is decided that way. It's one reason I've watched less football in the last 2-3 years. And it's not just the NFL – go back to the Notre Dame-Florida State game this year. I support instant replay, and think it should be expanded to allow coaches to challenge penalties.
I was thrilled that Kevin Spacey won, and appreciated his heartfelt story. I was also surprised and pleased to hear Michael Keaton use his real name and give so much love to his family. Clooney was Clooney – the coolest guy in the room. And his point was so spot on – we don't remember the specifics of what awards people won, but what impact they had through the way they lived their life and committed to their work. That's a pretty good lesson for us "ordinary" people too, I think.
The only thing Ted Cruz represents in Congress is his presidential aspirations. And I don't see how there was enough evidence to be considered conclusive.
"… sometimes I’ll sit on the edge of my bed and will actually put my pants on two legs at a time."
That's cheating within the letter of the saying.
Ted Cruz and NASA: And NASA was doing so good with their efforts to build a manned Mars lander. If he's a man of principle then the Mars program and Climate Change will take a big hit over the next few years.
The whole thing is disorienting to me. I'm still trying to confront the idea that our climate will change, possibly irreversibly, during my lifetime. What's worse is the fact that unlike other geological catastrophes, this one can be halted if steps are taken. Rather than, at the very least, recognizing it as a problem so solutions can be considered, we won't even entertain that there is a problem.
I'm with you. I'm not sure how/why something that should be a scientific inquiry has become a political issue. Well, I guess I do, because ultimately it boils down to what we spend money on.
But the government's allocation to scientific research represents such a minute portion of the overall budget, there must be some other driving factor. In steps the big-business interests that will have to alter their operations in the event that enough people start paying attention to the scientists, and suddenly it becomes clear why this is a political issue and why it is so clearly divided along party lines.
For corporations, increased governmental regulation = decreased profit margin. By politicizing environmental issues, corporations can gain political support for minimizing government regulation of their industries, thereby greatly reducing the risk of decreased profit margins due to over-regulation.
How is this accomplished? By spinning scientific data as something that you can choose to believe or not believe, instead of treating it as empirical fact. There are hundreds of scientists who agree that climate change is real and is happening now. What has not been wholly determined at this point is the cause. From my perspective, it seems that means that we need to double down and do our best to figure that out, so that we can act accordingly. But instead of deciding to pour out time, energy, and funds into helping discover a root cause(s), we instead choose to debate whether or not climate change is even "a thing." And that's frustrating and harmful.
The current negative effects are the natural variations of our environment and the future negative effects are theories that scientist have confidence in?
There are hundreds of scientists who agree that climate change is real and is happening now. What has not been wholly determined at this point is the cause. From my perspective, it seems that means that we need to double down and do our best to figure that out, so that we can act accordingly. But instead of deciding to pour out time, energy, and funds into helping discover a root cause(s), we instead choose to debate whether or not climate change is even "a thing." And that's frustrating and harmful.
I agree with the hundreds of scientist. The climate has always changed. We are arrogant to believe that we caused the change and that we can direct the change.
Based upon past comments, I'm thinking Nassim doesn't trust or have confidence with the majority of the scientific community when it comes to climate change or global warming, possibly thinking those that support it is using it as a method of enticing a type of fear to get or maintain funding to keep their scientific jobs. But folks like Ben and myself have confidence in the scientific community because their studies are published and peered reviewed and made public for criticisms. The criticisms haven't found a lot of support because of the peer review method, they haven't held up.but many like Nassim, I believe, feel more comfortable with the criticisms because he feels these climate change scientists have an agenda.
This is just one of those topics that takes a lot of time to learn and understand before acceptance, something you really just can't pick up in a five minute news segment or even a two hour documentary. Some folks think you can easily describe how Christ is the rightful savior, but in reality it can take a lot of study of understanding the Old Testament, fulfilling prophecy, understanding cultures and their history, study of the New Testament etc.
It's easy for a lot of folks to trust that Christ is the rightful savior because the people they love and trust have taught them this and there's never been anything to think they are wrong based on past relationship. It's also easy for a lot of folks to favor science because the scientific method has provided great things such as medical breakthroughs and such.
I'm over simplifying this, and have no idea Nassim's faith, I'm just using Jesus as an example, but this is just my attempt to say that while I disagree with Nassim's comments, I tried to see things from his perspective based on past comments, but trying to be respectful in the process. Perhaps I failed, but I tried.
Years from now the group think will change and we will look back and say that we all believed in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and now we have more data and we will move on to the next hysteria.
This year was the first year my 7-yr-old son ever really cared about watching football. Of course, he quickly adopted the Cowboys as "his" team. (I'm a lifelong Redskins fan, but gave up on them and the NFL. Still…this pained me.) I was happy for him that this year the Cowboys did so well, but when they lost yesterday, he wept. He was crushed in that way that only little boys can be crushed when their team fills them with hope and then comes so close and loses. It hurt my heart to see him so sad, and to know that this was among the first in a string of many disappointments he would face in life. I held him yesterday while he cried, knowing that, while I wouldn't be there to hold him every single time this happened in the future, I could be there in that moment. The Cowboys lost yesterday, and my little boy got one step closer to being a man. Man, that sucked.
All that being said, I think the refs got it right. I think the rule is wrong and a bad one, but based on all the "expert" explanations I've heard, it appears the call was correct. At least to me. I just hate it when a game is decided that way. It's one reason I've watched less football in the last 2-3 years. And it's not just the NFL – go back to the Notre Dame-Florida State game this year. I support instant replay, and think it should be expanded to allow coaches to challenge penalties.
I was thrilled that Kevin Spacey won, and appreciated his heartfelt story. I was also surprised and pleased to hear Michael Keaton use his real name and give so much love to his family. Clooney was Clooney – the coolest guy in the room. And his point was so spot on – we don't remember the specifics of what awards people won, but what impact they had through the way they lived their life and committed to their work. That's a pretty good lesson for us "ordinary" people too, I think.
The only thing Ted Cruz represents in Congress is his presidential aspirations. And I don't see how there was enough evidence to be considered conclusive.
"… sometimes I’ll sit on the edge of my bed and will actually put my pants on two legs at a time."
That's cheating within the letter of the saying.
Ted Cruz and NASA: And NASA was doing so good with their efforts to build a manned Mars lander. If he's a man of principle then the Mars program and Climate Change will take a big hit over the next few years.
I miss the days when we could call it Global Warming. Simpler times before our doomsday predictions caught up with us.
Climate Change v. Global Warming.
The whole thing is disorienting to me. I'm still trying to confront the idea that our climate will change, possibly irreversibly, during my lifetime. What's worse is the fact that unlike other geological catastrophes, this one can be halted if steps are taken. Rather than, at the very least, recognizing it as a problem so solutions can be considered, we won't even entertain that there is a problem.
I'm with you. I'm not sure how/why something that should be a scientific inquiry has become a political issue. Well, I guess I do, because ultimately it boils down to what we spend money on.
But the government's allocation to scientific research represents such a minute portion of the overall budget, there must be some other driving factor. In steps the big-business interests that will have to alter their operations in the event that enough people start paying attention to the scientists, and suddenly it becomes clear why this is a political issue and why it is so clearly divided along party lines.
Please explain the problem.
This feels like a troll, but I guess I'll bite.
For corporations, increased governmental regulation = decreased profit margin. By politicizing environmental issues, corporations can gain political support for minimizing government regulation of their industries, thereby greatly reducing the risk of decreased profit margins due to over-regulation.
How is this accomplished? By spinning scientific data as something that you can choose to believe or not believe, instead of treating it as empirical fact. There are hundreds of scientists who agree that climate change is real and is happening now. What has not been wholly determined at this point is the cause. From my perspective, it seems that means that we need to double down and do our best to figure that out, so that we can act accordingly. But instead of deciding to pour out time, energy, and funds into helping discover a root cause(s), we instead choose to debate whether or not climate change is even "a thing." And that's frustrating and harmful.
What are some of the negative effects of "Climate Change?"
http://bit.ly/1w9Vj3j
The current negative effects are the natural variations of our environment and the future negative effects are theories that scientist have confidence in?
There are hundreds of scientists who agree that climate change is real and is happening now. What has not been wholly determined at this point is the cause. From my perspective, it seems that means that we need to double down and do our best to figure that out, so that we can act accordingly. But instead of deciding to pour out time, energy, and funds into helping discover a root cause(s), we instead choose to debate whether or not climate change is even "a thing." And that's frustrating and harmful.
I agree with the hundreds of scientist. The climate has always changed. We are arrogant to believe that we caused the change and that we can direct the change.
Based upon past comments, I'm thinking Nassim doesn't trust or have confidence with the majority of the scientific community when it comes to climate change or global warming, possibly thinking those that support it is using it as a method of enticing a type of fear to get or maintain funding to keep their scientific jobs. But folks like Ben and myself have confidence in the scientific community because their studies are published and peered reviewed and made public for criticisms. The criticisms haven't found a lot of support because of the peer review method, they haven't held up.but many like Nassim, I believe, feel more comfortable with the criticisms because he feels these climate change scientists have an agenda.
This is just one of those topics that takes a lot of time to learn and understand before acceptance, something you really just can't pick up in a five minute news segment or even a two hour documentary. Some folks think you can easily describe how Christ is the rightful savior, but in reality it can take a lot of study of understanding the Old Testament, fulfilling prophecy, understanding cultures and their history, study of the New Testament etc.
It's easy for a lot of folks to trust that Christ is the rightful savior because the people they love and trust have taught them this and there's never been anything to think they are wrong based on past relationship. It's also easy for a lot of folks to favor science because the scientific method has provided great things such as medical breakthroughs and such.
I'm over simplifying this, and have no idea Nassim's faith, I'm just using Jesus as an example, but this is just my attempt to say that while I disagree with Nassim's comments, I tried to see things from his perspective based on past comments, but trying to be respectful in the process. Perhaps I failed, but I tried.
^ What he said.
Years from now the group think will change and we will look back and say that we all believed in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and now we have more data and we will move on to the next hysteria.