Ebridg3

quote:

---

Clemson
@ Ole Miss
A&M
@Auburn
Bama
Texas
@Tenn

---

I agree with your concern given that Clemson isn't a guarantee, but if you look up and Clemson is a double digit game in the third quarter... I'd consider the bet, because when that game finalizes, Vegas isn't going to give you -235 odds that LSU wins 2 of the remaining 6 games that you have listed.

If you're patient, and don't mind waiting on your money.. this is as close to free money as you're going to get.

1000$ bet is 400$ and some change in profit.

I mean, nothing is guaranteed, but this is an absurd odd to offer.

quote:

---

I think Aranda would suffer the same problems he did in 2019. He really struggled to adjust to our offense scoring so frequently and so quickly. He made adjustments and they were much improved by the end of the season, but I do worry that'd be an issue under Kiffin.

---

Super teams existed in 2019. Those teams don't exist anymore.

Aranda had even said it then, and really, who stopped teams better? Maybe you forget, Nick Saban himself was given up points back then.

quote:

---

First, you assume that future revenues will stay at their current level. That is not a reasonable assumption. The SEC is expected to increase revenue greatly in the future.

Second, a portion of the additional money will be used to increase future revenue.

Third, the current/future liabilities (buyouts) are not going away by themselves. They will end, but they need to be paid in the interim. Any time an entity takes a loan, they are using future cash flow to pay that loan. Future cash flow will be impacted one way or the other.

---

Interested to know how you see them increasing revenue.

Games sell out already
Concessions are already ridiculous
Parking has already been ruined

Football is becoming less popular among college age students as a whole.

Make no mistake about it... youre conflating winning with making more money without identifying actual mechanisms that make more money.

You can do three things.
1. Increase volume of sales
2. Increase profit per sale
3. Reduce costs

Newsflash... youre not reducing costs if youre trying to win championships.

Your whole philosophy is based on winning == more money.

Its like you got a room full of entrepreneurs and zero ops guys.

My point is, this is short term thinking, not long term.

And psychologically, its stupid as hell. Its liking giving a bunch of money to a woman that was already seeing you for nothing, just because she liked you. Now, youre a cash cow to her. She will never see you the same again.

Dude when you say you ysed chatgpt, if you didnt use 5.6 SOL very high, max pro or ultra thinking... then it just regurgitate a web search because you didnt give it time to do its own computations

quote:

---

My point is that it isn't a one-sided sacrifice. At sign up and especially when decided to extend, the assessment was made by the individual that the sacrifice was worth it for one or more reasons. From your previous statement, no, most of us don't understand that level of sacrifice, but we can certainly make the assessment that it must be worth it to the individual choosing it. I mean, why would someone go through it and continue to go through it if it wasn't worth it? It also doesn't make disability claims unassailable.

---

?You are fundamentally confusing a civilian free-market transaction with the legal framework of the United States military, and in doing so, you are trying to rewrite a contract after the fact.
?First, let's address your assumption about "extensions." Millions of disabled veterans never extended. They signed a single contract, did exactly what was asked of them in places like Iraq, sustained permanent physical damage in the process, and got out. You assume people stayed in because they ran some corporate cost-benefit analysis and decided the "sacrifice was worth it." That is a fundamentally civilian mindset. When guys in combat zones extend, they don’t do it for the "benefits"—they do it because their team is going back into the meat grinder and they refuse to leave them behind.
?But let’s play along with your "contract" logic, because it actually destroys your own argument.
?Yes, they made a choice at sign-up. They signed a legally binding contract with the federal government. The terms of that contract were simple: the government gets absolute, dictatorial control over their bodily autonomy, and in exchange, if the government breaks their bodies while exercising that control, it owes them medical compensation for the permanent loss of their earning potential and physical capability.
?That is what VA disability is. It is not SSDI. It is not welfare based on an inability to work. It is a strict, legal liability mechanism for government-mandated physical destruction.
?When you say disability claims aren't "unassailable," you are using a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Nobody is defending fraudulent claims—fraud is a crime, and the VA has an entire inspector general's office dedicated to prosecuting it. But what you are actually trying to assail is the legitimacy of the debt itself.
?You are trying to use the fact that they "volunteered" as a loophole to scrutinize the compensation they are legally owed. You are essentially saying, "Well, you knew what you were getting into, so why should I, the taxpayer, have to foot the bill?"
?Here is the hard truth: disability compensation existed the day they signed those contracts. It was factored into the very "assessment" you claim they made. Now, years after the fact, as the country gets further away from the reality of the wars they fought, people who never took the risk want to back out of their end of the deal. You chose not to take the risk. That is fine. But you don't get to enjoy the security provided by the people who did, and then complain about paying the taxes required to honor the contract the country made with them.
?The debt is unassailable. If you don't want to pay the toll, don't ask men to stand on the wall.

.

quote:

---

That's true; it's certainly not for everybody, but I don't believe it's all solely benevolent service. That's the shroud the military will sometimes wrap themselves in when it's perfectly okay to also say they are in it for the benefits. Whether they sacrifice 4 years to get the GI Bill or 20+ years so they can have a pension, it was a sacrifice with a payoff in mind. That's not watering it down.

---

So I don't even know that you're really discussing disability at this point as much as you are creating a narrative that makes you feel as though that your self-worth is still good even though you didn't serve. This isnt a moral superiority conversation, many people served to avoid jail. They still served. This is about people misconstrueing military disability with welfare.

Its not...

The bottom line is when you're ordered to go do something with the penalty of being jail time, or Worse , historically, not just getting fired from a job if you choose not to do it, and you sustain any injury any injury at all that can even remotely take away from your earning potential then in this country we consider that a legal debt to that person and that's why we pay it.

The vast majority of that compensation is not disability the way you think it is.

Its maybe hundreds of dollars a month... maybe a thousand.

And yes.. anything that medically impacts you while you serve is compensated for.

With that said, people who didnt serve sometimes don't quite understand that even not combat veterans, when they served, their life, 24/7 was dictated and controlled by someone else. Most can't wrap their head around that level of sacrifice or what that truly means.

quote:

---

Would it matter??? If he left the tent and got a knife, it would be just as bad if he already had the knife in his backpack.
Why would a high school track athlete need to bring a knife to a track meet?

---

It's all irrelevant really if they asked him to leave and he said anything along the lines of make me or dared them that's provocation and he's screwed but if the prosecutors need any more material to paint the picture there were 12 girls in that tent and only like four guys so he wasn't being teamed up on and in fact, this was all ego.
It's murder. He's done.

The defense had to basically convince the jury to not look at the objective facts and to try to put themselves in Carmelo's mind and see how he could be paralyzed by fear that's really out the window with all this testimony the environment it wasn't a whole enemy team there right it was mostly chicks the the words that he said everything everything that happened came from like a place of anger and hatred from Carmelo and that's how he acted all up until a cop told him that have Austin dies he screwed and then he realized in that moment that he doesn't have a self-defense claim and that's when he started freaking out and only then did he start freaking out

quote:

---

I’ve seen plenty of projections where preseason Nuss was not only 1st rounder was 1st pick.

---

How did those predictions just now play out?

How did they play out for Shadeur?

quote:

---

So this whole thing is because of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis?

Weird perspective I hadn’t heard that one yet.

---

How much time have you spent in the middle east... amongst the people there?