Hopefully the wind will be blowing like crazy. We got a chance if they can’t throw.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

2388bb said:

You could be correct. My point is there is no loyalty from anywhere going forward. It will probably get worse before/ if it ever gets better.

Click to expand...

I guess I am just a skeptic when 6 players from the same team bolt to preserve a year of eligibility, precisely before they potentially burn a year of eligibility. . I am all for Coaches being honest if the players don’t fit in their plans. However, this feels like a situation where the Coach says you not in out plans as a future starter, but if you remain on the team I may use you on Special teams or mop up duty. Looks like some have just been on the team this year, so I’m not sure which Coach recruited them. If you know the kid will transfer a next season, why not let him train and learn from your staff for the remainder of the year? After all, the kid did commit to your program. This all assumes the players are not cancers. These players clearly don’t trust the Coach with thar year of eligibility. It’s ok to be a decent human being. I think NU has at least one player we all expect to transfer that is still around. I am sure there are more.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Hkjb said:

I for one will be relieved to have this board actually be about NU basketball again, rather than an overexposed Io_a alum.

Click to expand...

You should become a premium subscriber. No Caitlyn Clark talk on Pound the Rock!

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Purple Pile Driver said:

I would steer my son away from if he was a recruit. This guy has PJ written all over him. I believe after the honeymoon he eventually comes back to the norm and crashes.

Click to expand...

You could be correct. My point is there is no loyalty from anywhere going forward. It will probably get worse before/ if it ever gets better.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

AdamOnFirst said:

I don't disagree with that statement personally, but I will point out that this PARTICULAR issue doesn't much follow a standard left-right divide and you will find plenty of small-c-conservative change averse pearl clutchers in both parties on this particular issue.

That at hardball politics. We have a decent number of Republicans in MN who religiously oppose gambling and a decent number of Dems who oppose it based on what you're describing, but the big reason is the native tribes have a permanent gambling monopoly and are decisively powerful Dem funders. They haven't been able to iron out a final structure they like yet, so it's blocked cold. Very very close for a couple years now after a few years of hard opposition though.

Click to expand...

Gambling is a source of revenue for state governments, and money has only one color.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

PurpleWhiteBoy said:

Your clarifications are correct. I was writing about legislators and executive branch - the politicians.
It is probably heresy to some, but we need more than two political parties.
Instead we're saddled with entrenched extremists on both sides who prioritize their uncompromising agendas (and themselves) ahead of the nation.

The first flaw to correct is to allocate the federal House of Representatives based on percentage of the vote for each party in each state.
This would enable minor political parties to establish a foothold in the largest states and go from there.
Of course, the two existing parties will never allow it - as the money pours in and they enrich themselves fighting the same stupid battles eternally, backed almost entirely by corporations and wealthy donors.

Click to expand...

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this. While there are things about the two party system that are maddening, I also see other countries with multiple parties forming coalitions once elected. In a sense, you could argue that our system just forces them to build their coalitions before the election. But again, I would be open to hearing arguments for changing our two-party system.