Did you see the two a-hole fans committing interference? They didn't even wind up with the ball.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Not political, but RIP Teri Garr.


Login to view embedded media

NorCalTarheel said:

I'd add Kansas State, apparently BYU, and Baylor

Click to expand...

Yea but look at their 25 classes right now…

1 more thing that I have read…That the Ram Clubs big money people are having a hard time spending money on kids to come play at UNC…They would rather spend it on facilities and scholarships…

This system is not sustainable it will break down in 2 or 3 years…Or you will see schools basically drop every sport except Football and Basketball…

As almost always, Stewart is funny through truth. He really hits it at the 1:45 mark.

Login to view embedded media

TPFKAPFS said:

Our team will be small situationally but it doesn't have to be. We could have a 6'3", 6'5", 6'8", 6'9", 6'10" or 11" lineup if needed. We can play any style and matchup well with almost all teams. The key is we will need to rebound as a team and play hard nosed D all game. I see Hubs emphasizing running and getting in peeps' jocks. I expect this team to embrace it and be deep enough to sustain it. I see only 1 potential limitation and that is individual will! With 9-10 guys ready to step up, I see plenty of motivation to stay focused because you can easily see yourself move down the bench! Why would you question that UNC teams have played multiple D styles in the past? I anticipate seeing even more of it this year as they gel.

Click to expand...

Maybe your right. Again, I just haven't seen a UNC team that plays with a ferocious intensity of D for 40 minutes each game. I don't really think that's been UNC's identity historically. But this is a different team so they'll be able to create whatever identity that they want to.

And because it will be a different team and a much younger team in some key spots, I don't think the multiple defenses will happen early in the season.

I wouldn't define UNC historically as an overly multiple defense, but that's me. For me, I don't really differentiate much between 21 and 22 base man-to-man defense. Then they run and jump situationally. Again, for me, not very multiple. I don't know how you have a multiple defense if zone isn't really part of that equation either. And when they do zone, you know they're zoning because it's on underneath the basket in bounds plays. So the opponent can very easily game plan for that.

UNC switching from 21 to 24 man to man defense and calling that multiple is like saying Syracuse was multiple because they had iterations of the 2-3 zone. If you want to call that multiple, then that's fine. I disagree with the definition.

heelmanwilm said:

This is a knee jerk reaction to another law in Calif school districts REQUIRING schools to notify parents if their kids want to be referred to with different pronouns. All of it is stupid af. First off a school should use whatever the fuk pronoun they feel is appropriate. Not the kids. I would make an exception if the parents step in. If a parent feels it’s best for their kid to be called something different then I would support that. In other words, if you’re a kid that wants to be referred to with diff pronouns you should go to your parents and your parents to the school.

Click to expand...

Kneejerk reaction to a law stating they must be notified of happenings in their child's life? Asking for parents to be notified of things having to do with their children elicits a "kneejerk reaction"? Jesus...

heelmanwilm said:

First off a school should use whatever the fuk pronoun they feel is appropriate.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting statement. I think I agree. The only issue is batshit crazy, loser, teachers and administrators with their own agenda aren't making sound decisions.

What Would Jesus Do? said:

I suspect Pomeroy would argue with the "arbitrary" part of your comment.

The respected field of Baysian statistics involves using assumptions when actual data aren't available yet.

Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar, as I have a math degree. Assumptions can be based on observable data as preconditions or they can be arbitrary. The assumptions in question here are far more arbitrary than observable and thus, speculative. This issue is exacerbated by modern roster flux.

In other words, let some games play out.

nctransplant said:

It's easy to see who has children on this board and who doesn't.

Click to expand...

This is a knee jerk reaction to another law in Calif school districts REQUIRING schools to notify parents if their kids want to be referred to with different pronouns. All of it is stupid af. First off a school should use whatever the fuk pronoun they feel is appropriate. Not the kids. I would make an exception if the parents step in. If a parent feels it’s best for their kid to be called something different then I would support that. In other words, if you’re a kid that wants to be referred to with diff pronouns you should go to your parents and your parents to the school.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Kool1234567 said:

When you may who is that….

dook
UK
Arkansas
UConn

That’s just 4 off the top of my head…I really can’t think of that many when you consider how many teams play D1 basketball..KU has yet to get a commitment in the 25 class…I think UNC is having the same problems that many are having in this new day and age…

Click to expand...

I'd add Kansas State, apparently BYU, and Baylor

joeydavid said:

Seriously, Trump is running an ad calling Kamala the "c-word". They think denigrating women is a winning strategy for their deplorable cult members.

Click to expand...

Typical. SOP for TDS and your posts.

First, it's not Trump, it was Musk's PAC.

Second, the reference to the "c-word" is used to catch the viewer's attention and then you are given the actual word - Communist.

I'm gonna chalk this up to you not actually seeing the ad and relying on your crack sm sources for your news, or just that you have a five second attention span and never made it to the part where they gave you the actual c-word.

NorCalTarheel said:

I don't disagree but so many Universities don't seem to share our problems???

Click to expand...

When you may who is that….

dook
UK
Arkansas
UConn

That’s just 4 off the top of my head…I really can’t think of that many when you consider how many teams play D1 basketball..KU has yet to get a commitment in the 25 class…I think UNC is having the same problems that many are having in this new day and age…

gunslingerdick said:

New California law bans rules requiring schools to notify parents of child’s pronoun change

Newsom signed a law barring school districts from passing policies requiring schools to notify parents if their child changes their gender identification.

www.kpbs.org

Click to expand...

It's easy to see who has children on this board and who doesn't.

What Would Jesus Do? said:

A. Not true.
B. Even if it were true, it doesn't follow.

Click to expand...

There wasn't an A and a B, so I have no idea to what you are commenting. However, it's nice to know that you don't think parental involvement versus schools and other government representatives isn't "serious stuff". Proves my entire point. Appreciated.

What Would Jesus Do? said:

A. Not true.
B. Even if it were true, it doesn't follow.

Click to expand...

joeydavid said:

Hey look, another moron trumptard donates his life because he's too stupid to know he's being conned.

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Hey look, fours years after an event, a week before an election involving He Who Must Not Be ReElected is happening, this story breaks. Wow. They must have finally got the pictures back from the drugstore. Those guys take forever.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Now back to the serious stuff

pooponduke said:

So, the standard is that you need to get PARENTS PERMISSION for using a child's likeness, but parents don't need to be involved in issues impacting the very development and direction of those same children?

Click to expand...

A. Not true.
B. Even if it were true, it doesn't follow.

pooponduke said:

So, the standard is that you need to get PARENTS PERMISSION for using a child's likeness, but parents don't need to be involved in issues impacting the very development and direction of those same children? This pretty much summarizes the entire issue with the extremes of the D party. How about parents being involved with everything involving their kids? When did that become a non-thing?

Click to expand...

DaveChapelle said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

So, the standard is that you need to get PARENTS PERMISSION for using a child's likeness, but parents don't need to be involved in issues impacting the very development and direction of those same children? This pretty much summarizes the entire issue with the extremes of the D party. How about parents being involved with everything involving their kids? When did that become a non-thing?

bluetoe said:

please substantiate McMasters saying what is bolded above.

Click to expand...

He gave you a book reference. Have you read it yet?

It's very interesting.

Who you gonna believe? Woodward or some FOX talking head?

Heels Noir said:

How did you put it a couple of weeks ago? They claim the government can control the weather but believe climate change is a hoax.

Click to expand...

See above. You believe people control climate change, but that individual weather can't be? I'm not even gonna ask you to reconcile those two possibilities.