TrueBlueGED

Don't think he scores that with a shorter stick :nana: :nana:

I'm not. Coaches are dumb.

Gostisbehere continues his tournament struggles.

I think my wording may have incorrectly presented my conspiracy counterpoint. I mean there's no conspiracy with the CNN/ORC methodology or with using them as one of the pollsters to determine an invitation. There's certainly a more general effort on the part of the major parties to deny 3rd parties access to elections. It's a bit ironic you mention ballot access, because that's actually where most of it takes place, and it helps prevent prevent third parties from grooming candidates in lower office. But it's still a relatively small piece of the pie for why third parties rarely win anything useful. Further on the debates, if ballot access was eased in a meaningful way, then it'd be critical to have a poll-based threshold for a debate invitation. Can't have a presidential debate resemble the Republican primary from this cycle.

Since misery loves company: if he's toast I literally don't have a backup to Gurley and McCoy in my big money league. And the way the Rams look, Gurley may be a huge bust this season. Are you sure you want to trade them? :lol:

All that stuff was after the fact spin to make it look better for the organization that the coach walked away. There's nothing credible to suggest he was somehow forced to opt out of his own contract for being less jolly than Santa. Edit: I believe it was Tim Graham who reported the raise thing. For as big of a douche as he is on Twitter, he's pretty plugged in to the Bills.

1) Capricious, maybe. But certainly not arbitrary. 2) I actually have two things here. First, the likely voter screen likely (and rightly) significantly chops the subsample of young voters talked to versus those likely to actually vote. The margin of error is over 8.5% for that demographic, does listing the vote choice with that kind of a margin really offer any meaningful insight? I don't think so. Also, young voters aren't the only NA listed. Their most recent Florida poll didn't list the crosstab for 35-49 year olds. Nothing nefarious here. Second, the young subsample isn't tossed from the entire poll, just the vote breakdown for that group isn't showing. Maybe you want to see it, but it doesn't toss shade on the validity of the overall poll. There's just nothing in the methodology here to point to a two-party conspiracy to exclude candidates from the debate.

Again, he opted out of his contract because he couldn't get a raise. He didn't get a raise because his performance didn't dictate he deserved one, not because he didn't smile enough. But sure, keep going with whatever makes the team look worse regardless of truth.

1) Shame it can't keep off the guys who have never heard of Aleppo ;) :p Almost always this would hold true, but I still think there should be a popular vote minimum. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible, someone could cobble together ballot access in a bunch of big states and still be low single digits nationally. 2) I know you desperately want to weave conspiracy through this, but those media outlets are also conducting some of the most frequent polling, and regularly partner with other polling firms to do so. 3) Now this, this is just completely unfounded conspiracy. The 15% minimum is certainly designed to limit the debates to the major parties, but actually believing the Commission would change the rules at this stage if a 3rd party got close to 15% is nonsense. Why shouldn't they use polling to determine viability? Huh? ABC/WaPo released poll results on September 11 (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf). Also had one in the field in early August (https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/08/07/National-Politics/Polling/release_435.xml?tid=a_inl). Most recent CNN/ORC national poll had a sample of 601 landlines and 400 cell phones. Here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf Well, this is a bunch of hooey.

If Marrone was so damn good, he'd have gotten one of the fourteen vacant coaching jobs over the last two years. Go ahead and believe what you want to maximize your misery with the current team/regime, but Marrone was not a good coach.

Right, Marrone got rid of Marrone.

We got rid of Marrone because he thought beating a Patriots team that wasn't trying in week 17 to get to 9 wins made him Vince Lombardi and tried a power play for a raise for him and his staff. If there's one thing I'm sick of right now, it's Bills fans romanticizing about that damn 9-7 season. Marrone was every bit as freaking mediocre as every other mediocrity we've employed the past 16 years. Are we really forgetting all of the braindead decisions he made in just two years? The Pegulas, too? I mean they're there, and thus, technically infected. Fine. They're losing at least one of the next two.

I'm unreasonably excited for the game tonight.

At least the Dolphins also suck. That's all I got right now.

Mike Shanahan, he of two Super Bowl rings, was willing to work for Daniel Snyder, the most meddling of meddlers. That turned out to be disastrous, but that's besides the point...qualified candidates aren't going to spurn the Bills because they're worried ownership cares too much (how's that for putting spin on meddling? I'm pretty proud of myself right now).

1) On average, Johnson is pulling 1-2 points more from Clinton than Trump. 2) Feel maybe, discuss yes, test no. There's no real way to test for this without actual votes, and the primaries (while they were still competitive) were actually showing votes for Trump underperforming his polling. Most attributed this to a lackluster voter mobilization effort, but it was mostly (I don't want to say definitively it all) within an expected margin of error deviation from the polls. Will be interesting to see how that plays out in November. Ultimately I'd expect the power of partisanship to overcome most of any social desirability effect that may be happening, and the error term almost certainly sufficiently contains any leftover.

For whatever it's worth, Sal Capaccio's report of events is quite different from Rapaport's.

Correct. My best friend growing up had one.

I agree Johnson should be invited, but there has to be some kind of popular support minimum to prevent a bunch of yahoo's from managing to qualify. Johnson's 9% (particularly since he's maintained it for a long stretch) should be enough. But if he had 2% or something, I guess I wouldn't really care that he has ballot access, he wouldn't belong.

The Commission on Presidential Debates decides which candidates to invite. From their website: Edit: Neo beat me to it. You suck Neo.

Think Rex leaked it? Anyway, I'm more convinced by the day that the Bills need a football version of Tim Murray.

O'Reilly had more ice time than Crosby (speaking of...that top line is dominant) in the 1st. Nice. Neither here nor there, but I remain convinced Babcock would have had an epic mancrush on him if he chose to coach here.

:lol: :lol: :lol: So assuming this score holds, US has to beat Canada Tuesday to stay in the tournament? Goooooooood luck with that.

You've made your point about lackluster forward play while doing zero to counter the point about poor defensive play. The Dmen pinching and getting roasted on odd man rushes is responsible for about 95% of Europe's scoring chances. Shall I give a play by play of each one like you're doing with the forwards, or is a slightly less obnoxious method acceptable?

I do what I want!